John Hutton: I agree strongly that we need to pay nurses more and give them a better rate of pay. That is precisely what we are doing with Agenda for Change, which has been negotiated with nurses and the Royal College of Nursing in particular. It gives us an opportunity to make significant progress in this important area—something that was quite invisible when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in charge of the national health service.

John Reid: Because there is not a shred of evidence to show that there were undue problems with the first contract. Twenty-five thousand treatments have been carried out under that contract and patient satisfaction is 96 per cent., which is comparable with anything that we have ever done in the NHS. Of course, when one embarks on such an undertaking, there are teething problems. However, we should be careful to ensure that we are on the side not only of the health care providers in the NHS but of the patient. I know that the Liberals always put the interest of the patient second to that of the producer, but the 600,000 extra scans that we procured for NHS patients means that, for example, in Newham hospital, which I visited last week, people are now waiting less than one week. That is a huge improvement for patients. It is one of the reasons why, when purchasing another 2.4 million scans, I was willing not only to extend the number of NHS scans by 1.4 million but to procure another 1 million from the independent sector, in the knowledge that they would all be delivered free—with no charges, unlike what would happen under a Conservative Government—to all patients in the NHS.

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which is being introduced today.
	On 26 January, I told the House that I intended to bring forward a Bill as quickly as possible to repeal the powers in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—the 2001 Act—and to replace them with a new scheme of control orders applicable to all suspected terrorists irrespective of whether they are British or foreign nationals and, in relation to most controls, irrespective of the type of terrorism with which they are involved. The Bill is designed to meet the Law Lords' criticism that the previous legislation was both disproportionate and discriminatory.
	The Bill needs to be seen in the context of the scale of the continuing and serious threat to the security of the United Kingdom from terrorism. I will today publish a series of discussion papers that set out the Government's view of that threat and our strategy for reducing it. In 2004, I laid before the House a copy of the report of the noble and learned Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of the part 4 powers in the 2001 Act. Let no one be in any doubt that there are terrorists here and abroad who want to attack the UK and its interests.
	Some believe that the absence in this country of a terrorist outrage such as 9/11 or Madrid means that the terrorist threat has somehow passed us by or failed to materialise. That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier in its disregard of the safety of this country. I pay tribute today to the vigilance and professionalism of our security authorities, including the police, for all that they have done and are doing to keep this country safe. It is their efforts, rather than any reduction in the ambition of terrorist organisations, that have protected us from such an attack.
	My principal responsibility as Home Secretary is to protect this country and everyone within it. I am determined that we will take the steps necessary to ensure our safety. The Government's preferred approach—our first option—is to prosecute and convict terrorists. We are considering the scope for new offences, including that of being concerned in
	"the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"
	and other measures, with a view to helping the police and prosecuting authorities to bring more cases to court. I intend to bring forward further counter-terrorist legislation on those issues as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	Some suggest that we could bring more prosecutions, if only we would allow intercept to be used in criminal proceedings. I have thought carefully about that, but for all the reasons set out in my written statement to the House on 26 January, I do not believe that it is true. The reality is that intercept is only a part—often a small part—of the intelligence picture in such cases. Its main value is usually in helping the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to direct their resources, such as surveillance, most effectively to disrupt terrorist activities and gather evidence to support arrests and prosecutions.
	The fact is that there will always be some people—including some extremely dangerous people—whom we cannot prosecute, either because the material that we have is inadmissible in criminal proceedings, or because it cannot be used for fear of revealing, and so endangering, sources and techniques. Some say that we should do nothing about those people, or that we should just monitor their activities through surveillance and so forth and hope to deflect them in that way. I do not accept that—the risk is too great. That is the reason for the Bill that I am publishing today.
	The Law Lords' judgment on 16 December found that the part 4 powers in the 2001 Act were disproportionate and discriminatory in that they applied only to foreign nationals, and we had apparently managed to contain the threat from British nationals without detention. As I told the House on 26 January, I accept that judgment, and therefore believe that it is important to address those concerns. We should not simply renew the current legislation, which the Law Lords so overwhelmingly regard as flawed. We should replace it—with strong measures that are fully compatible with the ECHR, and applicable to both British and foreign nationals.
	The Bill that I propose empowers the Secretary of State to make control orders and to impose under them a range of controls on the individuals concerned that will be tailored to meet the threat that each poses. The purpose of the orders is to prevent an individual from continuing to carry out terrorist-related activities. The orders will be time-limited, but they will be capable of being renewed or remade if the threat posed by the individual justifies it.
	The Bill makes provision for a range of controls to be imposed. The list will include prohibitions or restrictions on the possession of specified articles or specified services or facilities, on association and movement, and on an individual's place of residence, place of work or occupation. Other restrictions will be placed on those individuals' ability to travel, including abroad. A breach of a control order without prior consent will be a criminal offence, triable in the usual way through the criminal courts and punishable by imprisonment or a fine, or both.
	At the top end, the obligations that could be imposed could include a requirement for the individual to remain in a particular place at all times, or some similar measure that amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The place in question will vary with the threat posed by the individual. It could be the individual's own home, or his or her parents' home. It could even, in certain circumstances, be in accommodation owned and managed by the Government.
	However, such severe forms of control order would require a derogation from article 5 of the ECHR before they could be implemented. As hon. Members know, article 15 of the ECHR allows member states to derogate from certain aspects of the convention where there is a
	"state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation"
	and the measures proposed are
	"strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".
	Therefore, the basis of any derogation would be those two conditions—the threat to the life of the nation, and the necessity for measures that would deprive people of liberty. The Bill therefore provides that I can make orders that require a derogation only if the following factors apply: first, if there is a designated derogation in force from all or part of article 5 in respect of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation; secondly, if the obligation imposed is such as has been described in that derogation; and thirdly, if I am satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the person is, or has been, involved in terrorism, and that the imposition of that obligation on that person is strictly required for the purposes of protecting the public from risks arising out of, or associated with, that public emergency.
	In the event that a derogation was necessary, I would make the designated derogation order. It would come into force immediately but under the Human Rights Act 1998, it would need to be confirmed by a vote in each House of Parliament within 40 days of its having been made if it were to continue in force. So the conditions of any derogation—that is, the threat to the life of the nation and the necessity for the measures that would amount to a deprivation of liberty—would be considered, assessed and voted upon by every Member of Parliament if it were to remain in force. I believe that this framework is robust and enables the security of this country to be properly addressed in all foreseeable circumstances.
	These are rightly onerous conditions, which Parliament will have to consider at any time when a derogation is made. I have, of course, carefully considered the current situation, and I have to tell the House that it is not my intention to seek a derogation at this time.
	I am clear that a derogation is justified on the basis of the threat that we currently face. As I told the House on 26 January, there is a continuing public emergency as a result of the threat from al-Qaeda, its agenda and its adherents, including the different groups and linkages that make up the al-Qaeda movement in its broadest sense.
	However, on the second criterion for derogation—the necessity for the measures—I have been advised by the police and security authorities that they consider that the control orders that will be established by this legislation are sufficient to deal with the individuals concerned and that deprivation of liberty, although valuable, is not "strictly required", in the language of the convention. They support the measures in the Bill that allow me to impose obligations up to, but not including, a
	"requirement to remain in a particular place at all times",
	and the flexibility that they give me to tailor the controls imposed under any order to the threat posed by the particular individual. The security authorities tell me that at this stage they do not want to add anything to the range of controls that I am suggesting.
	Of course, these circumstances may change in future, and quickly. Were the current situation to worsen, we could find ourselves in a position in which it was imperative that we were able to place a particular individual or individuals under an obligation to remain in their homes at all times, or to impose some other measure that amounts, in effect, to a deprivation of their liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The Bill will allow me to impose such an obligation on a particular individual or individuals as appropriate, provided that a designated derogation order setting out such obligations is in force.
	When considering whether to derogate, my starting point will be, as now, the threat that we face. I shall look to the security authorities to advise me on that and on the measures that they think are strictly required to meet that threat. I shall also take advice on the legal and other issues that arise in relation to any proposal to derogate before making a final decision.
	If my decision is to derogate, I shall make the necessary designated derogation order and lay it before Parliament. As I said, the order will come into force immediately but will continue in force only if it is confirmed by a vote in both Houses within 40 days of being made.
	Any derogation from article 5 of the ECHR raises serious issues. Were we to derogate, we would need to keep the need for such a derogation under regular review. The Bill therefore provides for me to lay an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, before Parliament every year after the first to the effect that it continues to be necessary to have the power to impose derogating obligations by reference to the derogation. That derogating control order would have effect beyond the first year of the derogation only while such an order was in force, so Parliament would have an opportunity annually to have its say on whether any derogation continued to be necessary.
	The Bill gives certain responsibilities to the Secretary of State. I know that some hon. Members would prefer those responsibilities to be allocated entirely to the judiciary. I have listened carefully to all that has been said on this point, both inside and outside the House, and I have sought in the Bill to address the concerns that have been expressed. However, as I said, the Government's, and my, prime responsibility is to protect the nation's security. In many ways, that is our paramount task. Decisions in this area are properly for the Executive, who are fully accountable to Parliament for their actions. However, when an individual is deprived of liberty for any length of time that is, of course, also a matter for the courts. Everyone must recognise that in the interests of security and speed an order may need to be imposed immediately, but in those exceptional cases of a clear requirement to make an order depriving an individual of his liberty, the courts must determine as soon as practicable whether the order should continue.
	It follows that the judiciary has a critical role to play in the process. In relation to control orders not requiring derogation, its role is to review and, when appropriate, to confirm decisions made by the Executive. For derogating control orders, its role is to decide, on the merits, whether to continue the order or to refuse to confirm it. The Bill makes full provision for that.
	The Bill provides for non-derogating control orders to be subject to challenge in the High Court by the person against whom the order has been made, and for the Court to apply the principles of judicial review in hearing the case. The Court will be able to consider the issues in both open and closed session, with a special advocate representing the interests of the subject of the order in closed sessions.
	Derogating control orders will be subject, as befits the seriousness of the issues raised, to a different form of scrutiny by the High Court involving an automatic two-stage process. On being made, the order will have to be referred immediately to the Court for consideration within seven days at a preliminary hearing to assess whether the Home Secretary had reasonable grounds, prima facie, for making the order. Both sides will be represented. There will be open and closed sessions and the interests of the subject of the order will be represented in closed session by a special advocate.
	If the Court were so satisfied, the case would be automatically referred to the High Court for a full hearing at which the Court would decide for itself, on an assessment of all the material, whether the order should have been made and what conditions should have been applied. Again there will be open and closed sessions and the interests of the subject of the order will be represented in closed session by a special advocate. It will be open to the Court at both stages to strike down the Secretary of State's order or give him directions to modify it.
	I have published the Bill today in full confidence that it meets the situation that we face in three important respects. First, I believe that it meets the judgment of the Law Lords. Secondly, the Bill rightly confirms that the security of this country lies with the Government of the day, fully responsible to Parliament and the country. The Government are fully accountable to Parliament for the way in which they carry out their responsibilities, and under the Bill that accountability will be manifest, demonstrable and timely. At the same time, the process of judicial scrutiny that I propose should meet the genuine concerns that have been raised. Thirdly, the Bill will ensure that the measures that we put in place fully meet the threat that we face from terrorism, both as we see it today and as it might, despite all our best efforts and those of other countries, develop and mutate over time.
	This is an important Bill. It raises serious and difficult issues. But we must have the capacity to protect our people now and in the future. It would be the gravest dereliction of duty to wait until we have suffered a terrorist outrage here, and then respond only after the event. I am not prepared to take a risk of that kind, and I hope the House will join me in that. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice of the statement and for his advance briefing on the subject. The whole House will join us in paying tribute to the vigilance and professionalism of the police and security services who protect us so well.
	I do not underestimate the difficulty of the problem facing the Home Secretary. I accept that there are no easy answers, and as far as I am aware, nobody is saying that we should do nothing. However, I have to tell him that I believe that he has settled on the wrong answers, which will sacrifice essential and long-standing British principles of liberty and justice in a way that is unlikely materially to enhance the security of our people—indeed, which may act to reduce that security.
	The Government have been forced to this point by the decision of the House of Lords two months ago. One of the comments by Lord Hoffmann is particularly relevant:
	"I said that the power of detention is at present confined to foreigners and I would not like to give the impression that all that was necessary was to extend the power to United Kingdom citizens as well. In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution".
	But that, in effect, is what the Home Secretary is doing. Although he has qualified it—properly and in response to representations—with some safeguards, under these proposals, for the first time in modern British history, a politician will be able by order to restrain the liberties of a British subject. He will do that on the basis either of balance of probabilities or even of simple suspicion. He will do it for reasons, and on evidence, that may not even be known to the British subject whose liberty is lost.
	A further quote from the Law Lords, this time from Lord Rodger, highlights just how extraordinary that step is:
	"The Government's assessment is . . . that it is not necessary to detain the British suspects in order to contain the threat that they pose. That is implicit in the entire policy that they adopted and emerges in any event from para 36 of the Home Office discussion paper on Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society issued in February 2004: 'While it would be possible to seek other powers to detain British citizens who may be involved in international terrorism it would be a very grave step. The Government believes that such draconian powers would be difficult to justify.'"
	It should be noted that the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Select Committee a few weeks ago that the terrorist threat has not materially changed in the last year, so presumably that comment is still true. The Home Secretary reinforced that point today with his comment that the security services do not believe that they need the full extent of the powers in the Bill at this point.
	The question that has to be asked is: what is the immediate emergency that demands that draconian powers against British subjects be rushed through these Houses of Parliament without proper consideration, scrutiny or debate? What is the emergency that has arisen in the past 12 months that demands that, without proper debate, we give the Home Secretary the right to fetter the liberty of British subjects, from restricting their ability to communicate right up to and including house arrest? The only answer is, of course, the House of Lords' judgment. It is very clear from what I have quoted already that the Law Lords themselves did not envisage or encourage the proposals that the Home Secretary has put forward today.
	Tomorrow, we will debate the details and principles of the Bill, but I want to raise one or two material concerns today. The first and most fundamental is the fact that the decision is to be made by the Home Secretary, not a court of law. The Home Secretary said that decisions that affect national security should be for a politician, not a judge, to make. That is a remarkable, novel and hazardous doctrine. Even in the second world war, when enemy spies threatened the lives of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of soldiers and civilians, they were tried by a judge and jury under normal rules of evidence.
	I have heard it said today that the power is designed to allow the Home Secretary to act quickly. The Home Secretary's proposals for the strongest powers, above the derogation level, require review by a judge within seven days, yet under laws passed by the Government the police are already allowed to detain a terrorist suspect for up to 14 days without charge. It is, therefore, possible to detain a suspect for seven days, to bring them before a judge and have the judge make the decision, without giving the Home Secretary those powers—so the Home Secretary is abandoning a key principle of British justice for no obvious practical advantage. That thread runs through the proposals—a willingness to abandon proven principles of British justice, with little proven advantage in addressing the security threat.
	Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister apologised for the Guildford four decision. He made that apology about a decision taken in open court, with a judge and jury, with a standard of proof based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but which was still a miscarriage of justice. Conventional wisdom says that that miscarriage of justice was in part caused by the emotions in the aftermath of a terrorist outrage. What if a decision, using these powers, was taken by a Home Secretary in the aftermath of another terrorist attack? Under these proposals, a British citizen could be confined at the behest of the Home Secretary, on a balance of probabilities, on evidence never seen by the accused. What then would be the odds on a miscarriage of justice?
	The Government have quite properly and laudably put into effect measures to prevent the radicalisation of some groups in our society. These proposed laws, and the sense of injustice that they could create, could completely negate those efforts, and could indeed act as a recruiting sergeant for the enemies of the state.
	I reiterate: the Home Secretary does not have an easy task here and he has my sympathy in that regard, but there are better ways to achieve what he seeks. First, the House should have proper time to consider these proposals carefully. To that end, we are willing to support renewal of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 for a limited period, specifically to allow time to get this right. The Home Secretary has said that he does not think that will work, which gives rise to the question of why, earlier this month, he laid the draft order for that renewal.
	We are willing, for that limited period, to co-operate in primary legislation that limits the bail conditions that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission can allow, in effect guaranteeing that the control orders the Home Secretary is outlining in the Bill—up to and including house arrest—would apply to the remaining Belmarsh detainees until properly considered legislation came into effect. That would limit the possible injustice to a small number of people for a short and limited time, and would also give the Home Secretary the certainty he is seeking for foreign nationals.
	Meanwhile, I ask the Home Secretary to give proper consideration to the proposals that all Opposition parties—and, indeed, members of his own party—have made to him: allowing the use of intercept evidence in court, along with all the other evidence that surveillance generates; the use of an investigating judge to marshal and vet evidence for the court, to protect the interests both of the security services and of the defendants; the creation of new offences, to which he alluded in his statement, such as that of "committing acts preparatory to terrorism", or offences based on American anti-racketeering laws that deal with the same sort of problems in that country; and practical options, such as significant increases in the resources available to the agencies for surveillance and other purposes.
	All those proposals, and others, will receive a constructive response from the Opposition, if they are allowed proper time for consideration. Nobody is suggesting to the Home Secretary that we should wait for a terrorist outrage, but we must consider these matters properly. If however, the Government insist on rushing these measures through, I fear that they may do the opposite of what they want. They will create a sense of injustice among many British citizens, and do what I warned when we first discussed this: for every known terrorist that the Home Secretary confines, he may create 10 unknown terrorists, free to do harm to our people and to our nation. That would be more than a mistake; it would be a tragedy.

Charles Clarke: I am afraid to say that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what I said at the beginning. He and his party are in the do-nothing camp—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Do nothing, first and foremost, about the Law Lords' judgment—saying that nothing should be done about the 8–1 judgment indicating that the existing legislation is both disproportionate and discriminatory. If the Law Lords say that we have discriminatory and disproportionate legislation, I believe that there is an obligation on the whole House, not simply on the Government, to address that, and that is what we are doing.
	Secondly, on the point of substance, I indicated, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that there are cases in which we cannot prosecute potentially extremely dangerous people, either because the material we have is inadmissible or because it cannot be used for fear of revealing and endangering sources and techniques. He knows that extremely well, but his proposition in those circumstances is explicitly to do nothing whatever about people who offer that threat. He has made it clear, as has his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that they do not favour control orders as a device for dealing with the threat. They do not favour addressing the question directly at all. That is why it is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not addressing the threat.
	Thirdly, on the judicial point, I have indicated absolutely clearly, very explicitly, substantial judicial involvement in the decisions that the Home Secretary of the day will take, including, particularly at the level of deprivation of liberty, the ability of a judge to hold a full hearing, on the balance of probabilities, rapidly to consider the Home Secretary's decision. That is not the unvarnished decision of a politician; it is the decision of a Minister of the Crown accountable to the House, subject to detailed judicial confirmation in the fullest possible way, and it should not be portrayed as anything different from that.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman proposes renewing in the other place, and later in this place, the legislation that the Law Lords have struck down as discriminatory and disproportionate. As he knows, the fact is that were we to seek such renewal, and even were that renewal to be agreed by the House and elsewhere, despite the fact that that flew in the face of the overwhelming judgment of the Law Lords, for all the reasons that were stated, it would be entirely possible for the individuals concerned to appeal that Act to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg directly in that time scale. Secondly, in that situation, it would be entirely possible for SIAC, when considering the case of the individuals currently in Belmarsh, to say that the position we had taken did not allow detention in those circumstances, despite the fact that the order had been renewed.
	If we were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice, we would be establishing a regime that was uncertain and unsolid, and flew in the face of the Law Lords, for a period of three, four, five or six months while the Opposition made up their mind about what they wanted to do. Even at this point, I urge them to reflect again as parliamentarians on their responsibilities to this country and to our security, and to face up to those responsibilities rather than flying away from them.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for being so generous with his time and for giving us advance notice of his statement. I hope that he knows that over the past week the Liberal Democrats have genuinely tried to find a real solution for this complex issue. We acknowledge that the Government have moved some way in terms of strengthening judicial review, but the difference between us remains that the Home Secretary still considers that the judge should review his decisions, while we believe that it should be judges who take the decisions, not politicians. If the Home Secretary is prepared to let a judge overrule his decision, I do not understand why he is not prepared to let a judge take that decision in the first place.
	Does the Home Secretary realise that if he were to apply to judges for the control orders he would, in our judgment, still be meeting his responsibilities as Home Secretary in terms of dealing with national security? Again, I ask him to reconsider his position on that issue.
	Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that his current proposals are still based on "reasonable grounds"? Should not we be moving towards a higher burden of proof? Proof should be "beyond reasonable doubt" when it comes to removing the liberties of people in this country.
	On intercepted communications, we disagree with the Home Secretary, but he previously said that he would leave the door open on the issue. I ask him today to go further than that: will he consider re-establishing the Newton committee to make specific proposals on how intercepted evidence could be used by the end of the year?
	The Home Secretary suggested that a derogation will not be needed for control orders that do not involve house arrest, but is he aware of Liberty's legal advice that indicates that, in fact, a derogation would be required for any control order? What legal advice has he sought on that issue?
	Finally, will the Home Secretary outline what his plans are if today's proposals are rejected by both Houses? Will seek a renewal of the part 4 powers? If so, will he confirm what period he would require for that renewal? These judgments are all about the balance between the principles of justice and maintaining security. The proposals that the Government have outlined today get that balance wrong and that is why we cannot support them.

Charles Clarke: Let me first say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the approach that the Liberal Democrats have taken in the various conversations that we have had has been constructive, broadly speaking, in contrast to that of the Conservative party. Secondly, I accept that he and his colleagues have argued throughout that a judge, not a Minister such as the Home Secretary, should take these decisions in various areas. The reason why, ultimately, I do not agree is that the principle of Ministers' accountability to the House and Parliament is important, particularly in cases of national security, where the Government are charged with the responsibility of addressing those questions. However, I accept that there is a genuine difference of opinion about the way to address and deal with those questions, and I hope that he will pursue that as we consider the legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament. That is the right place to have exactly that discussion and conversation. We are imposing a higher burden of proof than was previously the case, both at the level below the deprivation of liberty and at the level above it.
	I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee will look at the intercepted evidence issues and I await with interest what it has to say on the matter, but I can tell the House that I have made my decision, although I have also said in my written statement to the House that I will keep the matter under review because, on the balance of judgment, my assessment is that to admit intercepted evidence would not assist in getting convictions. However, I am absolutely ready to keep that position under review, and, as I say, I look forward to what the Intelligence and Security Committee has to say in due course on the matter.
	The legal advice that I have received is clear about the deprivation of liberty. There are always legal arguments that will proceed—we will simply see how that goes, as we move forward—but we are absolutely clear that there is a difference between, for example, some form of requirement to stay in a home or, for that matter, in a prison and the idea of using an electronic tag or whatever. Those are qualitatively different in nature in so far as the deprivation of liberty is concerned.
	On renewal, I do not anticipate being in the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting serious restrictions on the liberty of the subject by Executive order. In exploring the risk of a miscarriage of justice based on suspicion, will he consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? He will remember that the Leader of the House was brought to trial on a robbery charge in 1975. He was almost certainly framed and, in any event, he was acquitted, but there must have been reasonable suspicion or he would not have been brought to trail. Does that not emphasise the real dangers of taking away people's liberty based on suspicion? Surely we should accord the ordinary citizen the same protection that was accorded to the Leader of the House?

Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend will accept that Parliament has a duty to be vigilant on behalf of civil liberties, but surely we need to be hard-headed and not just romantic as we acquit ourselves of that duty. Does he accept that some of his critics ignore the fact that it is far from unprecedented for the Executive to curtail freedoms in a national emergency, that his present proposals are a great deal more limited, focused and subject to scrutiny than those of many previous Administrations, and that he cannot ignore the real threats that the nation faces, whether by allowing those who would perpetrate atrocities to go about their business or by dumping the proper responsibility as an elected Government on to the judges when he has the primary responsibility?

Charles Clarke: I do think that the intelligence issues to which my right hon. Friend referred initially, particularly on weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq situation, have led to concerns about the security services and the quality of their intelligence on various issues. There can be no hiding that obvious point and I have said so previously to the House and to Select Committees. That does not, however, lead me to conclude that there are no security issues or that we can pretend that there is no threat whatsoever. That is why I will publish later today the issues papers to which I referred earlier. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that there is a real and substantial threat to this country from international terrorism and that it is necessary to address and deal with it. The correct thing to do is to put in place a legislative framework that recognises that and gives us the means to address it. That is what my proposals today are designed to do.

William Cash: Does the Home Secretary accept that this yet another chapter, after the Civil Contingencies Bill, the identity cards saga and so on, that shows how authoritarian the Government have become? Does he also accept that, with respect to the problem of the Strasbourg Court, whatever legislation emerges—and I strongly support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that it could be introduced on a temporary basis—he could get round the difficulty that he described in relation to the European convention on human rights by prefacing it with the words "notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998". That would guarantee that our judges would have to give effect to that legislation as agreed by the political will of the House.

Paul Murphy: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.
	I came to this House on 11 January to make a statement relating to the Northern bank robbery on 20 December. To recall the background, a highly organised and brutal gang kidnapped the families of two staff from the bank's headquarters in Belfast, threatening them with death unless the individuals co-operated in the execution of the largest robbery ever seen in these islands.
	Since then, a major police investigation has been under way. As the House is aware, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland made his conclusion clear that the Provisional IRA was responsible for the robbery. The Prime Minister and I have indicated that we accept the Chief Constable's judgment, which is also shared by the Irish Government and their security advisers. The Chief Constable's statement, seen in the context of other subsequent events, serves to reinforce the extent of the challenge that all of us face in working towards peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
	Earlier this month, on 10 February, I laid before the House a copy of a report presented to the British and Irish Governments by the Independent Monitoring Commission. That report, which the commission had elected to produce in addition to its normal twice-yearly reports to the two Governments, concluded that the Northern bank robbery was planned and undertaken by the Provisional IRA and that this organisation was also responsible for three other major robberies during the course of 2004. I am very grateful to the members of the commission for their quick response to the very grave situation created by the robbery and its attribution.
	The IMC concluded on the basis of its own careful scrutiny that Sinn Fein must bear its share of the responsibility for these incidents. It indicated that, had the Northern Ireland Assembly been sitting, it would have recommended that the full range of measures referred to in the relevant legislation be applied to Sinn Fein, including the exclusion of its members from holding ministerial office. In the context of suspension, it recommended that I should consider exercising the powers that I have to apply financial penalties to Sinn Fein.
	The House will recall that following the IMC's first report in April last year, I issued a direction removing for a period of 12 months the block financial assistance paid to Assembly parties in respect of both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party. Having reflected on the IMC's latest report, I have concluded that it would be appropriate for me to issue a further direction removing Sinn Fein's entitlement to this block financial assistance for a further 12-month period, the maximum permitted under the legislation. I am therefore minded to make a further direction to come into effect on 29 April—the day after the existing direction expires. Before reaching a final decision, however, I will take into account any representations made to me by Sinn Fein by next Tuesday. I will make a decision on whether to extend the financial penalties imposed on the PUP last April when I receive the next IMC report covering all paramilitary groups, which is expected in April.
	The commission's report also refers to other public money that Sinn Fein receives, although recommendations on this are outside its remit. In this context, I am conscious that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the past about the payment of financial allowances to the four Sinn Fein members who decline to take up their seats here. I hope that the House will welcome the opportunity to debate in the very near future a Government motion proposing that these allowances be suspended on a time scale in parallel with the arrangements at Stormont, in recognition of recent events. The debate on that motion is for another day, but I should emphasise to the House, lest anyone accuse us of denying the extent of Sinn Fein's electoral support, that the measures that we are proposing are designed to express the disapproval of all those who are committed to purely democratic politics at the actions of the Provisional IRA. All in this House recognise the degree of support for Sinn Fein, but we also believe that the actions of the republican movement are letting down everyone in Northern Ireland, including those who vote for Sinn Fein.
	There are those who will argue that these financial sanctions are insufficient as a signal of the Government's and Parliament's condemnation of recent events. They may well argue that I should take steps to exclude Sinn Fein from the political process or from the Assembly now. I want to deal with those arguments directly, because they are sincerely made and with a strength of feeling that I understand.
	The Government's ultimate goal remains the achievement of an inclusive power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. I need not remind the House that the robbery has set back the time scale for achieving that, but the reality remains that long-term stability in Northern Ireland will not come about if we focus on exclusion. That objective requires inclusion; dialogue with Sinn Fein must continue in order to see how that long-term goal can be achieved. But I am clear that this must be inclusion on the basis of a complete and demonstrable commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, that fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement, enshrined in the pledge of office.
	Had the robbery occurred while the Assembly was in operation, however, the decision about exclusion would have been very different. It is inconceivable, in my view, that members of Sinn Fein could again hold ministerial office while the issue of paramilitary activity and criminality on the part of the Provisional IRA remained unresolved.
	The suggestion is made in some quarters that I should restore the Assembly, and then, if the Assembly itself failed to take action to exclude Sinn Fein, that I should take action myself using the powers available to me to exclude it. This would be very difficult in the absence of a clear plan that would see the parties in the Assembly come together on a cross-community basis to form a Government in Northern Ireland, but as I told the House on 11 January, I have not ruled anything in or out as we continue to assess possible ways forward for achieving greater local political accountability. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, if we cannot achieve a comprehensive settlement in the short term, we need to consider other ways forward.
	In the meantime, our focus will remain strongly on dealing with the underlying issue of ongoing criminal activity in all its forms. The police investigation of the Northern bank robbery is the largest undertaken by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is continuing to follow up every lead. This is inevitably an intensive and time-consuming process, and in parallel with this, I am taking the opportunity to ensure that our arrangements for tackling organised crime remain fit for purpose, and I have asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), the Security Minister in Northern Ireland, to review the Organised Crime Task Force to see whether and how it might be strengthened.
	We continue to have excellent co-operation at both a political and operational level with colleagues from the Republic of Ireland. Yesterday, I met Michael McDowell, the Republic of Ireland Justice Minister, for a regular bilateral meeting, along with the police chiefs from both jurisdictions. At that meeting, I was pleased to see the further strengthening of co-operation, when the Chief Constable and the Garda commissioner signed protocols to facilitate the movement of officers between both forces through personnel exchanges and secondments with policing powers. That development can only serve to strengthen the existing co-operation between the two police services in tackling terrorism and other crime.
	Whatever our success in tackling criminality and paramilitary activity, the fact of the matter is that the commitment to peaceful and democratic means is not one that this Government need to make. As we said in the joint declaration of April 2003:
	"ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process."
	In the present context, it is, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both indicated, for Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA to do that. They need to step forward and tell us how they will demonstrate their full commitment to all the principles of the Good Friday agreement and how they intend to demonstrate to all the other parties in the political process, and to the people of Northern Ireland, that the kind of behaviour identified in the IMC report is in the past.
	Financial penalties of the kind that I have described today may signify our strong disapproval of what has happened, but they will not of themselves rebuild the trust that is necessary if confidence is to be restored. That is a matter for the republican movement in general, and for Sinn Fein in particular.

David Lidington: As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in giving us advance knowledge of the contents of his statement.
	The IMC report of 10 December could not have been clearer. It backed the opinion of both the British and Irish Governments, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in attributing responsibility for the biggest bank robbery in British history and for other serious crimes to the Provisional IRA. The IMC went further:
	"Sinn Féin must bear its share of responsibility for all the incidents . . . some of its"—
	Sinn Fein's—
	"senior members, who are also senior members of PIRA, were involved in sanctioning the series of robberies".
	Does the Secretary of State share that grim assessment? Does he endorse the IMC's judgment that Sinn Fein leaders were personally responsible for those crimes? Does he agree with the Republic of Ireland's Defence Minister, who said at the weekend:
	"We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are 'indivisible'"?
	The Secretary of State will have noted Mr. Adams' remarks at the weekend, when he denied once again that republicans are involved in criminality. We know from the recent comments of Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin that the republican movement still decides for itself what constitutes a crime, in the bizarre belief that it constitutes the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recall how republicans initially denied responsibility for the murder of Garda officer McCabe, for the abduction and murder of Mrs. Jean McConville, for the Enniskillen bombing and for a catalogue of murders and other violent crimes? In the light of that record, does he agree that we should treat Mr. Adams' weekend comments with utter disbelief?
	We shall support the sanctions announced by the Secretary of State today. Those of us who have advocated the suspension of parliamentary allowances for some time are glad that the Government have come round to our point of view, but it should not have taken Ministers so long to acknowledge that their decision to grant those allowances was badly misjudged. There is no statutory limit on the period for which parliamentary allowances, rather than Assembly allowances, can be suspended, so why does the Secretary of State propose to restrict that period to 12 months only? Many hon. Members, particularly, but not only, on this side of the House, have consistently taken the view that Members who refuse to take their seats and accept responsibility for representing all their constituents should not be entitled to claim the allowances that go with the discharge of those responsibilities.
	Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government's proposals mean that Sinn Fein MPs will still be entitled to offices at the Palace of Westminster and whether Sinn Fein MPs will still be able to give House of Commons passes to their staff, even if those staff salaries have to be met from Sinn Fein's alternative sources of funding?
	The reality is that the inclusive, power-sharing devolution envisaged in the Belfast agreement is sadly no longer practical politics until the republican movement has clearly and permanently put an end to its involvement in crime and its paramilitary structure. Does the Secretary of State agree that direct rule is now set to last for years rather than months? Given that time scale, is it not time for the Government to end the effective veto that they appear to have given Sinn Fein over any political progress and to try to move forward with those parties that are committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, so the people of Northern Ireland can get a greater say over the major public services on which they rely? Last autumn at Leeds castle, the Prime Minister said that if that attempt at a comprehensive settlement failed, the Government would look for a different way forward. He made a promise, and it is time for the Government to deliver on it.
	Finally, the Secretary of State will be aware of the Irish Justice Minister's description of Sinn Fein-IRA as a "criminal conspiracy". In recent days, we have probably seen only the tip of a criminal underworld of mafia-type dimensions that threatens the rule of law in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement of enhanced co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda, and I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the Secretary of State and Justice Minister Michael McDowell to strengthen the effort by the two Governments to combat organised crime in both jurisdictions. Will the Secretary of State give the House an absolute guarantee that the police and all other agencies will have his and the entire Government's unreserved support in their efforts to root out paramilitary crime, and that there will be no holding back in that effort wherever or to whomever those investigations might lead?

Paul Murphy: On the final point, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will expend all their attention and effort on making sure that we root out organised crime in Northern Ireland not only in the republican movement, but elsewhere. Yesterday's co-operation at Hillsborough is important, because it is the best example for many years of co-operation in dealing with criminality.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about the political process in Northern Ireland. I am not in a position to say that direct rule will go on for years, which is not something that I want to happen—far from it. The people of Northern Ireland deserve their own Government and Assembly and to run their own affairs. To that end, different political parties and others in Northern Ireland make suggestions that the Government must examine carefully. However, if there is to be local Administration—whatever form it takes—it cannot happen without cross-community agreement about how it occurs. That depends especially on the SDLP's position and views on the matter.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned the IMC and referred to the link between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. I have no reason to disbelieve the IMC report. We have always maintained that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked and part of the same movement. Yesterday, the Taoiseach described them as two sides of the same coin. The Government believe that that is exactly the case.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise what constitutes crime and criminality. In answer to a question that he posed at Northern Ireland questions, I believe that the idea that individual parties can define what they believe crime and criminality to be is preposterous. The Government share his view on the definition of crime and criminality. We will root out paramilitary activity and criminality, wherever it might be, in Northern Ireland.
	The Organised Crime Task Force, to which I referred earlier, takes into account all the agencies in Northern Ireland, such as the Asset Recovery Agency, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the police and Departments, all working together to ensure that, at whatever level and wherever it may happen, criminality is rooted out and tackled.

Ian Paisley: May I put on record that the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are greatly insulted by the attitude taken by IRA-Sinn Fein over these recent events? The Secretary of State said at the end of his statement today that IRA-Sinn Fein
	"need to step forward and tell us how they will demonstrate their full commitment to all the principles of the Good Friday agreement and how they intend to demonstrate to all the other parties in the political process, and to the people of Northern Ireland, that the kind of behaviour identified in the IMC report is in the past."
	We have listened to nothing else but apologies from IRA-Sinn Fein, and every person who has raised their voice for equity, decency and law-abiding principles has been maligned and lied about by the IRA-Sinn Fein leaders. The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland are sick of these insults. The leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein have stepped forward, and they have lied about the things that were brought to their attention. All that they could do was to malign the people who brought the charges. The time has surely come for this Government and this House to set their own affairs in order, and to say that there is no place in a democracy for armed terrorists and their campaign of crime against the decent citizens of Northern Ireland.
	The Minister of Defence in the south of Ireland has said plainly that two of the people in question are in the army council. If that is so—and I believe that it is; these charges were made long ago by those of us who come from Northern Ireland—this House should rid itself completely of those who are in the IRA or any other terrorist organisation. They should not have membership of this House. I trust that, when the Bill comes before the House, we shall have the opportunity to deal fully with these matters. Those people should not receive any money from the House, and they should be stripped of their privileges here. The time has come for stern, straight action to deal with this matter, and until it is dealt with, there cannot be proper, democratic rule in Northern Ireland. I am disgusted with the attitude of the Liberal Democrats here—

Helen Jackson: May I welcome in particular the part of my right hon. Friend's statement that sets out further strengthening of the Garda in the Republic and of the Northern Ireland police, especially as this phase can be brought to an end only when the perpetrators of the Northern bank robbery, and indeed of the recent murder in west Belfast, are identified, brought to trial and put behind bars? As the evidence for who those people are almost certainly rests with the Sinn Fein political party and the republican communities, is it not time for the Taoiseach and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make it absolutely clear that now, any elected representative in either state will be expected to co-operate with the police in either country to bring those criminals to justice and put them behind bars? Is it not time to insist that elected political representatives take their full responsibility within their communities and do not pick and choose, saying, "We can manage to avoid co-operating with the police against criminality"?

Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Alan Johnson: We are in close liaison with Treasury over the issue for obvious reasons—it links with our joint objectives on tackling child poverty. The Treasury's view is clear. As in all tax matters, adjustments are made in the following tax year without putting a burden on individuals. Indeed, there is the opportunity to discount the overpayment if that would bring unnecessary concern to individuals. That approach is no different from how every previous Government approached such issues.
	The maximum maternity pay and child benefits for mothers at home with their first baby will have risen by £5,000 in real terms since 1997. Therefore, we are committed to supporting parents both in fulfilling their parenting role and in fulfilling their aspirations in the workplace. With our record investment in the new deal and Jobcentre Plus, we have transformed the UK labour market. There are now 2 million more people in jobs than in 1997 and we have seen increased employment rates for lone parents, ethnic minorities, the low skilled and people aged 50 and over.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is probably aware that of the 2.7 million pensioners living in abject poverty when we came into government, two thirds were women. That is reflected in the figures on pension credit. Of 3.2 million individuals receiving pension credit, 2.1 million are women. My hon. Friend is right that this issue must be resolved. Various ways have been proposed to achieve that, including the patching up system that he suggests. We are determined to tackle the problem, which cannot be allowed to continue. It is a scandalous situation, and we need to look further into which proposals to adopt in order best to tackle the problem.
	Both next year and in the spending round to 2008, the pension credit will rise by average earnings. By 2008, there will be 600,000 fewer pensioners in poverty than there would have been if we had followed the policy of the Conservative party and only uprated the guarantee in line with prices. The guarantee credit will rise so that no single pensioner need live on less than £109.45 a week and no couple on less than £167.05 a week. More than 3.2 million pensioners are now in receipt of pension credit, with take-up strongest among the very poorest.

David Willetts: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make it clear that we accept that the pension credit should rise with earnings according to the timescale and on the basis that the Government have set out. When I costed our original proposal on increasing the basic state pension in accordance with earnings, I was careful not to make any assumptions that involved taking money from the pension credit uprating. We would also increase the pension credit in the way that the Secretary of State set out in his speech today.

David Willetts: The Secretary of State says, "Consensus!" It is certain that the Opposition would not reduce pensioner incomes below the pension credit uprating that he set out. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State about his thinking on the future of the pension system. He has made bold and radical statements outside the House, but hon. Members would be pleased to hear him say something in the House about the future, and about the possibility, for example, that a citizen's pension will be introduced. It was reported in The Sunday Times that he was considering ideas for a citizen's pension payable to each individual pensioner, male and female alike, on the same basis. Is that true? If so, would it be an entirely individualised system? It would also be interesting to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say about that.
	Moreover, it would be very interesting to hear from the Secretary of State, or the Minister for Pensions, what are the Government's thoughts about a citizen's pension. A system under which every pensioner received an individualised state pension would be very expensive indeed. In a written question on 7 September last year, the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) asked for an estimate of the cost of extending the full basic state pension to all people of pensionable age, regardless of their national insurance contributions. The Minister for Pensions replied that the gross cost in 2005–06 would be £7.3 billion, and the net cost £5 billion. He said that that would rise over five years to a gross cost of £11.9 billion and a net cost of £8.1 billion. Is that what the Secretary of State is contemplating?
	If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of something slightly less expensive—and we have read about a figure of £3 billion in this context—does he envisage that some money could be saved by paying to couples a pension that is worth less than two individual pensions? That would mean cutting pensions for some couples. Married women who chose to pay the full rate of national insurance contributions in return for a full pension in their own right would get less money than at present. Is that what the Secretary of State proposes?
	I believe that a lower rate for couples has been proposed by the Pensions Policy Institute and by the Liberal Democrats.

David Willetts: We have set out our plans for increasing the basic state pension at the same rate as the increase in earnings during the lifetime of the next Parliament. Provided that we can continue to identify the necessary savings—I am confident that we can—we would continue to increase the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings with the aim of reducing gradually the spread of means-tested benefits. Under the Secretary of State's approach, the problem will get worse and worse. We would, initially, at least stop it from becoming worse and we would then want to improve the situation. We envisage continuing to identify savings to enable us to continue to increase the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings. In the manifesto produced at the end of   the first Conservative Parliament—a marvellous prospect—we would set out proposals to show how we would continue to fund the increase in the basic state pension at the same rate as earnings rather than prices. If the House wants to discuss that today, I would very much enjoy that debate.

David Willetts: Council tax is a devolved matter. We strongly support the proposals that have been put forward by our Scottish and Welsh friends. We know what they want to do. The council tax is an English matter and the basic state pension is a UK matter. I am happy to make that clear.
	I hope that we might hear from the Minister and the hon. Member for Northavon their thoughts on the citizen's pension. It is so easily endorsed as a marvellous solution to all our problems in the pensions system and I would very much like to have some practical answers to questions about how it would work, whether it would be a completely individualised payment, and whether it would be at a lower rate for couples. If the rate for couples is to be lower, on what basis will that be because it is not obvious how that could be done? I hope that the Minister and perhaps the hon. Member for Northavon will refer to those points during the debate.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State for more information about what he said about the financial assistance scheme. We warned all along that £400 million would not be enough. The Government were lucky to get away with their announcement of £400 million when it was perfectly clear that that was completely inadequate given the scale of the crisis. That is why we supported the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—he is no longer in his place—of using the unclaimed assets of banks properly to replenish these funds.
	It is useful to have the Secretary of State's belated announcement of how the scheme would work, but it will be an ad hoc arrangement. In his written statement this morning, he merely set out the basis for people aged more than 62—he gave a slightly wider age range in his speech. People who are not yet in the final three years before retirement now have several more years of uncertainty before they know where they stand. Does that not tell him that there is something wrong with the fundamental design of the FAS and that it would have been better to have considered properly replenishing the funds of the pension schemes involved? Why was he unable to give any indication today of his thinking about how he would help the majority of people who have already seen their pensions wound up and who are already concerned about their financial future? It is not acceptable to leave people who are more than three years from retirement in a state of complete uncertainty about how the FAS may or may not assist them. I hope that we shall hear some more information about that from the Minister of State.
	It would also be helpful to have an update on the latest estimate of the number of people affected by pension wind-ups. If the Minister can provide a list of a large number of company pension schemes that are covered, it should presumably also be possible to offer an update of the figure of 65,000, which has been around for some time. It would be useful and interesting to hear his latest assessment of the total number of people who are likely to be eligible. As the 65,000 estimate has had to be revised, are the Government hinting at having to increase the scale of the £400 million total, too?
	What about the interaction between the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund? Can the Minister tell us more about that? What would happen, for example, if a scheme wound up before April 2005? It is possible that there could still be large schemes in those circumstances. At what point does the FAS stop and the PPF take over? The Minister has caused considerable confusion on that point over the past six months, so it would be helpful to hear his comments about that.
	I hope that it will not be too outrageous if I speak briefly about the other motion—on guaranteed minimum pensions, often regarded as a technical subject for nerds and anoraks—[Interruption.] We will not name names. In practice, the subject affects large numbers of people who contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme—now the S2P—into a funded company pension scheme and who may find that there is not even enough money in the company pension scheme to pay the guaranteed minimum pension to which they believed they were entitled as their minimum insurance, so to speak, when they contracted out. Ministers sometimes talk as though there was no pension insurance before the PPF, but the guaranteed minimum pension is in fact a type of insurance for people who contracted out of the state system.
	People who contracted out and whose company pension schemes are winding up are experiencing many problems in securing the basic GMP. I hope that the Minister will comment briefly on that when he winds up. He will recall that in one of our least exciting parliamentary question and answer sessions, I put a question to the Secretary of State on 9 June 2004—[Interruption.] It was indeed a classic.
	My question was about deemed buy-backs, which occur when schemes have insufficient assets to secure the guaranteed minimum pension and the Department is asked for full reinstatement of the state pension. There is a strong feeling in the industry that the process of securing the deemed buy-back is slow and cumbersome. When the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions answered me in June, he said that the Inland Revenue had received expressions of interest in deemed buy-back from 59 schemes, 33 schemes had formally requested calculations and eight of those had been issued with the necessary calculations. The crucial sentence in his answer was the final one. He stated:
	"As yet no-one is receiving reinstated benefits."—[Official Report, 9 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 478W.]
	May we have an update on that?
	There are rumours that one or two real human beings have actually received a payment under the deemed buy-back arrangements. If that were happening, it would be marvellous, but the Minister owes the House a fuller explanation of how deemed buy-backs are working, as well as an explanation of the workings of the GMP. The guaranteed minimum pension is not delivering the security that it was supposed to deliver. Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous that the Inland Revenue issued guidance that schemes could discharge their GMP liabilities by purchasing annuities that would provide an income well below the level of the GMP? In other words, the guaranteed minimum pension has turned out to be neither a guarantee nor a minimum for people who are having to manage on much lower incomes. How can the Minister defend those arrangements?
	What about the idea that has appeared in the pension press that people who have contracted out will be asked whether they have taken out additional voluntary contributions and that, if they have an AVC, it will be included in the calculation of their pension income and they will only be able to buy back into the state system if, even with their AVC, they are still below the level of the GMP? Those are important questions that are at least as relevant for the victims of pension wind-ups as the scale of the FAS. They can appear technical and are easy to gloss over but, between consenting adults, we should all welcome a bit more information from the Minister today.
	I have a few brief questions on some other aspects of the benefits system that are relevant to the uprating statement. We did not hear about the Child Support Agency. We were all fascinated to learn that the chief executive of the CSA was no longer in place. The Secretary of State gave the Select Committee on Work and Pensions the distinct impression that that was so. But the chief executive is still in place, so perhaps the Minister can tell us how the search for his successor is going? When might we see the outgoing chief executive leave the CSA and a replacement arrive? We shall be interested to hear about that.
	I hope, too, that we might hear more about the Government's views on the problem of the 1 million-plus young people who are not studying, working or training. Although the Secretary of State always praises the new deal, if there are now more than 1.1 million young people who are not working, studying or training—a higher figure than in May 1997—surely that suggests, even to those on the Government Benches, who always go out of their way to speak so complacently about the new deal, that there is a problem. Will the Minister for Pensions reflect on why even more young people are part of the lost generation—neither working, nor studying, nor training—than in May 1997? Is it perhaps the case that the arrival of employment zones is a recognition by the Government that the new deal is not working, and that employment zones are intended as an alternative to the new deal and pilot a rather different approach? We would greatly welcome hearing from him on that.
	I will not trouble the Minister by inviting him to comment on the announcement last week on the new basis on which the retail prices index would be calculated, although that is also relevant to uprating. I have given him enough technical questions and I hope that, when he responds to the debate, he can find the time to answer them.

Steve Webb: Normally, when I see this annual event coming up on the parliamentary calendar, my heart sinks somewhat. We used to have an entire day of parliamentary debate on the two orders each year, but we started to notice that the debate ran out of steam about half way through the day. I notice today that there does not appear to be a single Back-Bench Labour MP trying to speak in the entire debate, even though we are talking about £100 billion or so of public expenditure.
	None the less, the debate provides an opportunity, as we observed earlier, to reflect on strategy for reform of the welfare state somewhat more broadly. It has already been a rather revealing afternoon in that respect. In a sense, we are contrasting the three approaches to the issue. The one thing that has emerged this afternoon from the comments made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is the issue of linking the pension credit to earnings and the basic state pension to earnings. That seems to me inconsistent with the assertion that 1 million people will be lifted off means-tested benefits. I wonder whether we can get some clarification on that at some point.
	The motions before us are about the rate of benefits next year and therefore we must start with some discussion of adequacy in benefits. The infamous person coming from Mars to look at our deliberations would see that we were talking about a very thick volume full of different rates for different sorts of people and would assume that those rates were based on something. In fact, they appear to be based on what they used to be, plus a bit. There is no objective, external basis on which we pay certain amounts to different groups. I have heard the Minister for Pensions on the radio saying that this is something that he did not go in for in a big way. However, I wonder whether, in the quiet watches of the night, the Secretary of State might reflect on the fact that, year after year, we have been paying people on, for example, incapacity benefit increases of 70p, 80p and 50p, and their position has been falling further and further behind that of pensioners on pension credit and families with children. There must surely come a point in that process when we say not that enough is enough, but that enough is not enough. In other words, the process of just adding, in this case, a very small percentage increase to incapacity benefit leaves those benefits too small.
	The Secretary of State got a bit cross with me when I accused him, at the time of the uprating statement, of saying that life on incapacity benefit was comfortable. He denied saying it. I went back to Hansard and I found him saying precisely that. He used precisely the analogy in the newspaper report that he used in Hansard when responding for the first time to oral questions. It is quite clear that it is something that someone said to him: being on incapacity benefit is like falling in a ditch and then one starts to get comfortable. That is precisely what he said.

Alan Johnson: At last we get to the origin of the quote. A representative of the Leonard Cheshire association, who is a paraplegic, said to me and several other people, "The problem with incapacity benefit is that it's like fool's gold. They send you away to lie in a ditch, without offering any helping hand, and after a while, lying in the ditch, you start to feel comfortable in it and so you get used to being on benefits." If people think that that is something that I have said—if they think that I said that £74.15 a week is what people can live on comfortably—I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said just now, because I was puzzled about when I had said that. It was not me who said that; it was a paraplegic who was describing his feeling about being on incapacity benefit.

Steve Webb: No one disputes the fact that large numbers of people on incapacity benefit and other disability benefits would like to work. However, every time that the issue is raised in the House, I am struck by the fact that the same number is always cited. Seven years ago, we were told that 1 million disabled people wanted to work, and that number is still cited today. Either the Government are using old research or they have not made any progress on the agenda for seven or eight years, which is a crime. We do not want people to have to claim the benefits in the order if there is a better alternative, but too many people get stuck on them.
	There are anomalies arising from the benefit rates, and I shall deal with two of them. First, the under-25s are in an anomalous position, as people in that age group receive lower rates of means-tested benefits. That derives from an essentially Thatcherite reform which, the hon. Member for Havant will recall—I do not know whether his fingerprints are all over it—said that young people should live with their mums and dads. It used to be the case that householders received more money and non-householders received less, but that was changed so that people aged 25 and over received more money and under-25s received less. Those means-tested benefits carry through into the housing benefit system, so that a 24-year-old who tries to live independently—they may have been thrown out of the family home or their parents may be unable to cope with them any more—receives less help with their housing than a 25-year-old. I cannot see any justification for that entirely arbitrary cut-off, which has been in existence since 1988. I accept that the Government are not going to say that they will do something about that, but that Tory creation is an anomaly. At the time, the Minister for Pensions was probably working for the Family Policy Studies Centre, and I very much doubt that he thought introducing penalties for the under-25s was a good thing. Does he think that it is a good thing now?
	Another problem affects single, childless people under 25. Many lone parents are single and under 25 when they conceive. For the duration of their pregnancy they are living on the lowest benefit rate in the entire system, of just over £40. That is the environment in which their child grows before it is born, and I do not accept that that good for the health or welfare of young women who are about to become mothers. There is another anomaly in the linkage of benefits for childless people to the retail prices index and the linkage of pension benefits and so on to earnings. On her 60th birthday, the income of a woman on income support nearly doubles because means-tested benefits have been linked to prices for so long that they have become devalued. Money has been put into pension credit, so there is a huge jump in the benefits available to someone at the age of 60. It is hard to find a rational basis for determining that the 59-year-old woman needs only £50 or so, whereas the 60-year-old woman needs £105. There needs to be some external look at what different sorts of people with different family compositions, different disabilities and so on need to live on, as a benchmark—not so that we can immediately put everyone's money up to the enhanced level, but to identify the groups who are particularly badly done by under the present structure.

Steve Webb: Yes, that is correct, on a transitional basis. With pensions, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, one must set a destination—that is, one decent universal state pension payable to all those over state pension age, linked to earnings, sufficient to lift people clear of the means test and based on citizenship rather than on contributions. Clearly, it is implausible to get there in one go, so on a transitional basis we start with those over 75. As the hon. Gentleman says, that creates as beneficial cliff edge at 75. The difference is that I do not want that to be a permanent feature of the system, whereas the cliff edge at 25 and the current gap between 59 and 60-year-olds are both permanent features of the system. If the Secretary of State can tell me that those are transitional features that the Government will deal with and get rid of, I shall be delighted to hear it.

Steve Webb: No. We would preferred to introduce a better state pension, but because the Government have decided to make those payments, we have no plans to get rid of them. A simpler system would be a better system, not least because of the scope for misrepresentation. As the hon. Member for Havant knows, we have no plans to touch winter fuel payments.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) raised the substantive issue of fuel poverty, so it is shame that we have moved on to, "Can we get a good quote for our next leaflet?" Fuel poverty is not the primary responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, which is a source of concern. Given the issues about the adequacy of benefits for older people, it would be better if the Department were strongly involved.
	This is the eighth annual debate to which I have responded, and those who study my contributions may spot the odd common theme—I shall certainly keep gnawing away until I get answers. I did not expect to get the chance to press the Minister for Pensions today, but I hope that he will respond to my particular point about workers whose firms are still solvent. The Government always say, "That is tough. The firm should find the money." If the regulator cannot force the firm to find the money, however, is it fair to say to the workers, "That is tough. We cannot do anything"?

Archy Kirkwood: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), because this is my first chance to do so. He has pinched a lot of what I want to say, but that is not a great surprise.
	These debates are important. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, I remember the good old days, when the Chamber used to be packed and when hon. Members vigorously engaged with the arguments. The process of social security is so ineffably complicated that it drives hon. Members out of the debate. Hon. Members may attend to make constituency points because they have leaflets to write, which we all understand, but that leaves the debate at a level that does not do justice to the complexity, importance and development of the subject. This is my 23rd uprating debate—I may have missed one, so it might be my 22nd uprating debate.
	I know that the Secretary of State has got simplification in his sights because he said so at his last helpful appearance before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. He gave us some comfort by saying that the Department is considering the matter, which is an easy but fundamental point to make.
	I have considered some of the information and communications technology processes that the Government and the Department have in prospect as part of the Gershon review, which I support in principle. The Gershon report is not all about job cuts; it also considers the more efficient use of technology to deliver public services. If we do not fundamentally simplify the current panoply of benefits and start from first principles, we cannot harness the power of computer technology to develop more efficient public services. The pensions transformation programme is a good example of that because it has the potential to improve services, and I hope that it will. However, a system that was more easily computerised could generate savings, which could be put into improving benefits. That would be beneficial to everyone.
	Simplification is therefore necessary not simply for its own sake but to make anything of the potential of future IT provision. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep that in mind in his five-year plan and start considering annually the simplifications he can make in the uprating statement.
	I acknowledge that a huge amount has been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon rightly said that the campaigns against child poverty and pensioner poverty clearly show results. I accept that they have not all appeared in the statistics yet because there is a time lag, but much has been done, which is welcome. However, parts of the system cause concern. My hon. Friend mentioned working age adults without dependant children. They have been left behind and are in danger of being stigmatised in the provision of benefits.
	According to my arithmetic, jobseeker's allowance has increased by only £7.75 a week since 1997. The increase for adults on income support and JSA is only 55p a week. I have participated in such debates for 22 years and that is the smallest rise that I have ever known for claimants in that category. If I am right, we need to tackle the matter urgently.
	Broad inequality must also be addressed. The work of John Hills and his unit at the London School of Economics shows that, although poverty has been effectively and rightly targeted, we need to deal with the inequality that is beginning to emerge. It happens because people in the upper deciles of income storm ahead. People may say, "That's fine. So they should. Good luck to them." However, it creates tensions in the system because people see others getting access to life chances that they do not have. I believe that frustration about that can drive them to all sorts of untoward activity, including criminality and the informal economy. In some cases, it can lead to mental illness. Some figures suggest that the inequalities for some categories of claimants are getting worse. When the Secretary of State examines the uprating figures, year on year, he should consider the big picture of worsening inequality. He needs to think carefully about the way in which he can deal with that in future statements.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon asked for the basis on which the figures were presented. I have discussed the matter with Pensions Ministers over many years and in various circumstances. Many of our sister European nations effectively use modest but adequate budget standards to consider what is needed to provide a sensible income.
	The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine recently produced a report that found that adults needed a minimum of £91 a week on which to live. That is almost twice the level of income support available to the family cited. That is the measure of the adequacy, or inadequacy, of the current level of benefits—welcome though the increases may be. I am not saying that we should immediately move to using modest but adequate budget standards automatically. It would be difficult, and impossibly expensive, to do that all at once, but we should make more use of minimum income standard methods of determining what is necessary for a family budget. We have looked carefully at the benefits that the Government are using to measure child poverty in regard to the targets for the period from 2010 to 2020, and they are better than they might have been. However, a proper assessed budgetary standard for child income would have been a more useful tool for measuring the Government's progress.
	The Government have a story to tell on incapacity benefit and on pathways to work, and I support all that, but it is disappointing that it will take until 2008 to get that system rolled out across the whole of the United   Kingdom. The work done by the New Policy Institute in December 2004, which was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, clearly showed that economically active people who want paid work but who are not officially unemployed are a big client group, and present a big problem. It is a matter of concern that we are not going to have a UK-wide system to deal with that until 2008.
	Although the policy of having an active labour market is right, and has been successfully operated over the past few years, it ignores the fact that the quality of jobs at the lower end of the employment market cannot provide the necessary long-term stability and adequate life chances for families on lower incomes. The Government should look carefully at the statistics that show that people who go into low-paid jobs often rotate through them in a relatively short time in a way that does not help them much. They still suffer poverty, and they are still in difficulties. It is therefore not safe to assume that the problem is fixed simply by getting people into work. Given the statistics on this large section of the community, it is demonstrably not.
	I concur entirely with the point made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) about the lost generation of 1 million young adults. The number of people with poor or no educational qualifications is an issue. I accept that it is not technically a benefit matter, but it plays into the new deal and some of the other issues that we are looking at this afternoon.
	I am worried that some of the wider indicators show that, although the benefit system has improved, it is still not adequate for the purpose. The problem of low birth weights, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) used to bang on about in earlier times, is getting worse. It is a matter of real concern that the problem is being exacerbated in families on low incomes, and we are storing up problems for the future in that regard.
	The number of households in temporary homelessness is a huge issue. We really need to look at the structure of the benefits involved, including some of those dealt with in the uprating statement. In fact, it is time that we started looking at the Rossi index again. People's housing benefit is being restricted for a variety of reasons, including rent restrictions, which we all know about. The costs of housing have increased substantially, and increasing means-tested benefits by 1 per cent. using the Rossi formula might have been a safe thing to do five or 10 years ago, but we need to reconsider whether anything better can be done to protect people who have real problems struggling to meet their housing costs. That need is reinforced by the fact that there is only a 50 per cent. take-up of council tax benefit.
	There is evidence to show that low income, bad diet, low birth weight, homelessness and temporary housing all lead to an exacerbation of mental illness. That is not a direct social security responsibility, but there is evidence that things are getting worse, which we cannot ignore.
	Some capital limits in the order have been in place since time immemorial—indeed, some of them came in with the 1986 legislation, which I remember—but it makes no sense to leave capital limits to languish to such an extent. They need to be re-evaluated and uprated in some way, even if only occasionally and not annually.
	A couple of Members raised the issue of tax credits and I have three questions to ask because I am very worried. The hon. Member for Havant alluded to the problems relating to the recovery of overpaid tax credits. This is a serious matter that impacts on the benefits uprating order, because some people on low incomes are not getting their full entitlement as overpayments are being clawed back at an unconscionable rate. I wonder whether the Department knows how many income support claimants are on a reduced income due to recovery of overpaid tax credits. That would be an important and interesting figure to know.
	I also do not believe that ordinary people on the high streets of the towns of Great Britain know that the Inland Revenue has the discretion to write off overpayments. I do not think anybody tells them that.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the United Kingdom economy has been through a period of great transition over the past 15 to 20 years. Certain restructuring needed to take place. It would have taken place under a Labour Government had one been in power at the time. I do not know whether he is suggesting that some of the industries of that time should be carrying on with large state subsidies. Necessary transformations took place. They would have taken place whichever party was in power. If he is fair in his assessment of recent economic history, he will probably agree.
	I come back to economic activity and to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). We know from labour market statistics released only last week, on 16 February, by the Office for National Statistics that 1,126,000 of our young people aged between 16 and 24 were not in work, not studying and not training in December 2004. That figure is 44,000 higher than when the Government took office. In the trade, they are known as NEETs—not in employment, education or training.
	I wonder what all those people do. I wonder where they are. I have to think quite hard of the type of families that those 1,126,000 young people are in. What is their situation? That is a fantastic waste of potential for the UK labour force. We need to make a much greater effort to get those young people into employment.
	The Government say that we need migration. It is clear that we do in certain parts of the economy but we need to look to our own resource within this country and to get those young people into the public service jobs that we need and into areas where there are skills shortages. We should make a far greater effort to do that.
	The hon. Member for North Durham talked about unemployment. I come on to that willingly. We need to remember that we are in the 13th year of growth, which was set on a good curve in 1992. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that, between 1993 and 1997, when we were in power, unemployment fell by 908,000. There was a 31 per cent. fall. Between 1997 and 2004, it fell by 607,000. That is a 30 per cent. fall. Therefore, there was a 31 per cent. fall under us and a 30 per cent. fall in slightly more than seven years under this Government. He will see that the curve has carried on and that our record stands up well. We are obviously delighted that all those people have jobs but, as I said, those statistics speak for themselves and they are based on the back of 13 years of growth, established originally under a Conservative Government.

Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate, although I am saddened that it has not attracted the depth and width of interest that it might have done among Members. It is of particular concern that not a single Government Back Bencher has thought it necessary to make a proper speech on uprating; their constituents will wonder where they were this afternoon.
	The social security bill is growing. The Prime Minister said at his party's 1996 conference that that would not happen under a Labour Government, but the opposite has proved the case. There is growing means-testing throughout the entire social security world, and the related expenditure is often self-defeating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made clear, we will not vote against the uprating, although it remains to be seen whether the Liberal Democrats will, as it has been their habit to do so. However, it is a concern that so few Labour Members have felt it necessary to take part in this debate.
	I want to touch on several matters that have been raised. This has, rightly, been a wide-ranging debate, and those of us who have taken the trouble to be present throughout have covered a galaxy of different issues. I am looking forward to the Minister for Pension's winding-up speech. He has much more time than he might otherwise have had, and he will doubtless be able to dot every "i" and cross every "t", having had a chance to warm up in Westminster Hall this morning.
	As is often the case, the Government have produced a high-flown ambition: they want to abolish child poverty. However, they are setting about achieving that, in part, by changing the target. They want to exclude housing costs, which appears to lift about 1 million children out of poverty simply at the stroke of a pen. As Conservatives, we believe that the conventional way—focusing on those below 60 per cent. of median income—should be maintained, and that the Government are wrong to move the goalposts in the middle of trying to implement their high-flown policy.
	There has already been some discussion about the myriad failings of the Child Support Agency. In my other role as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I have had the pleasure—if that is the right word—of hearing evidence about IT and managerial failings from a series of people, including the Secretary of State, his predecessor and, of course, the much-discussed Mr. Doug Smith, whom I believe is still the CSA chief executive. We know that of the 478,000 applications to the new scheme since April 2003, only 61,000 non-resident parents had made a first payment. We also know that there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of complaints to the independent case examiner since 2003. Behind that figure, there must also be many people who have simply given up altogether. There must be many who have given up trying to contact the CSA by telephone, who have given up trying to get any sense out of the person to whom they are talking—if they do manage to get someone on the other end of the telephone—and who have certainly not gone as far as contacting the independent case examiner. When Mr. Smith gave evidence to my Committee, he said that the Child Support Agency had an aspiration to deal with these matters in an average time—between first contact with the parent with care through to having payment arrangements in place—of six weeks. At the time he gave that evidence, it turned out that in the real world, the average was somewhere between 15 and 22 weeks. I am not aware how long it takes at the moment.
	The annual report and accounts for the CSA showed an outstanding debt of £720 million in March 2004, with a further £947 million classified as uncollectable. My Committee had a lot to say about that, but I shall not go into all the details on this occasion. We had much to say about the failings of enforcement and—[Interruption.] I am talking about the Select Committee on which I have the honour of serving under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). Peebles used to be somewhere in that constituency name, but it seems to have got lost in the wash.
	I am not just talking about figures, or beating up high-flown officials within the CSA for their apparent ineptitude, as the fact remains that the CSA has failed to collect £750 million owed to some of the poorest families in Britain.
	When the Secretary of State came before the Select Committee side by side with Mr. Doug Smith, the body language was fascinating to watch. As the magnitude of the awfulness of the CSA's performance emerged, there was a perceptible growth in the gap between the Secretary of State and the chief executive.

Nigel Waterson: It is not for me to second-guess Her Majesty in these matters. In any event, there is no greater honour than being the chief executive of the CSA, and Mr. Smith seems intent on clinging to that for the time being.
	I turn to the debacle of the overpayment of tax credits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant noted, many hon. Members encounter this matter at their constituency surgeries, and in correspondence. People with delicate family budgets face real hardship as a result of this problem. What is being said to people about their overpayments? That question was asked earlier by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. How many claimants of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance are on reduced incomes as a result of the recovery of overpayments? If the Minister does not have the figures to hand, I should be grateful if he would write to us.
	What steps are being taken to ensure that income support claimants know that the Inland Revenue has the discretion not to recover overpayment in cases of hardship? I remind the House that it is my party's policy to introduce an amnesty in respect of most cases of overpayment. After all, the overpayments are not remotely the fault of the claimants themselves.
	I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been made about incapacity benefit, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, some elements in the Government's proposals—such as those to take away some of the stigma associated with the title of the benefit—are to be welcomed. However, the number of people on incapacity benefit has risen significantly under this Government. The present proposals apply only to new claimants, and contain nothing that affects the 2.7 million existing claimants.
	Will the Minister confirm that in 1997, 47 per cent. of people claiming incapacity benefit were unemployed, and that that figure has risen to 60 per cent.? Will he also confirm that the number of people leaving incapacity benefit has fallen, and that as a result, the number of claimants has risen by 140,000 since May 1997?
	I now turn to questions arising from the new incapacity benefit system. It was stated earlier that under the new system, severely sick or disabled people would receive more money. However, the rates for the new benefit have not been set yet. What evidence will be used in deciding the rates paid under the new regime that will replace incapacity benefit? What assurances can the Minister for Pensions give that sick and disabled people will not lose income under the new scheme? Will the Department set expenditure targets for the new rehabilitation support allowance and the disability and sickness allowance? How long does he envisage that it would take claimants on rehabilitation support allowance to move beyond the basic rate, which is paid at JSA levels, and reach the higher levels equivalent to long-term incapacity benefit?
	The separate issue of economic inactivity is one of those dialogues of the deaf, which we seem to have regularly in the Chamber, between Ministers who are happy to crow and issue press releases about the headline level of unemployment, but are reticent in talking about the large number of people in this country who do not find their way into those statistics because they are economically inactive. The crying shame, as my hon. Friends have said, is that more than 1.1 million young people are neither working, studying nor training. When will the Government have a proper thought-out strategy to deal with that lost generation, which is apparently doing nothing and is not included in the unemployment figures?
	While I am on the subject of employment and unemployment, it is worth quoting what Labour Market Trends concluded this month:
	"while unemployment levels have generally been increasing over the past four years, the rate of increase has been no more than in line with population growth, leaving the trend in the employment rate largely flat since 2000, following stronger growth through much of the 1990s".
	That is the context in which all employment and unemployment issues should be considered. The Government do not have some great success story; they are simply talking the credit for a trend that has been flat since 2000, and is based on the successes of the 1990s.
	On pensions, the quote given by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire bears repetition. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee recently:
	"you obviously don't want a situation where the majority of people are on means-tested pensions".
	Presumably on planet Blair, they are not. However, we know that at least half of pensioners are on means-tested benefits and that the proportion is destined to rise inexorably under this Government's policies, subject to one issue to which I shall return.
	We know that the latest figures show that one in five of the poorest pensioners are not claiming the means-tested assistance to which they are entitled. During the past three months, only about 30,000 new people have signed up for the pension credit. Despite all the bally-hoo, all the advertising—which I see regularly in my local paper in Eastbourne—and all the efforts of the Pension Service, which is doing an excellent job in my area, the application rate is tailing off. As Gordon Lishman of Age Concern said recently:
	"Around a third of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit are still not receiving it."
	That is 1.63 million people.
	We are all hanging on the final report of the Pensions Commission—the Turner commission—which, sadly, will not be available until after the election. It has spotted the effect of means-testing on pension provision in this country.

Malcolm Wicks: Although in some respects this has been a quiet debate that has not taken place in a crowded Chamber, a range of important issues have been aired on all sides. I pay tribute to all those hon. Members who spoke, including those who made some useful interventions. I would like to single out the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), the chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee and previously the Social Security Committee. He could not quite remember the number of times that he has taken part in such a debate—it was about 20—but I fear that this may be the last occasion on which he does so because, sadly, he is retiring from the House. Both in my current role and when I had great honour of serving on the Select Committee under his chairmanship, I have found his contributions thoughtful, well informed, intelligent and compassionate.

Andrew Selous: I should like to develop that tribute on behalf of the Opposition. I, too, am a member of the Select Committee and have been very happy to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). He chairs the Committee in an exemplary manner and I appreciate the opportunity to thank him for all that he has done.

Malcolm Wicks: That was a gracious tribute.
	I do not want the House or the massed ranks of my colleagues to think that I am going soft on the Liberal Democrats, as I may speak slightly differently about the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). The Government faced a strategic challenge, as too many British citizens were born poor, had an impoverished and diminished childhood—often, but not always, in fragile families. As a result, they achieved little at school and ended up with poor educational attainments. Some, but not all, of those children were at risk from evils in our society, and when they left school, sometimes before 16, they did not take up education, employment or training. That is a problem—it may not be as sizeable as some have said, but that is not the point. The Connexions service in England and the learning and skills councils were established in part to tackle such issues.
	As a result of those diminished childhoods, too many of our citizens end up without work or with poor job opportunities. They often have poor skills and are on low pay. That cycle ends with many people becoming impoverished in old age and receiving poor pension entitlements. The challenge for those of us interested in a modern welfare state is a traditional one—how do we break the cycle of poverty and deprivation and try to move towards a cycle of achievement and opportunity for all our citizens? We have not entirely met that challenge, which still faces us, but we have made progress. I am proud of our record on children and the fact that total spending on financial support for children has gone up by over £10 billion in real terms since 1997. I am proud of the fact that, since 1997, families with children will on average be £1,300 a year better off, while the poorest fifth will on average be £3,000 a year better off. It is notable that, in December 2004, nearly 20 million people, including 10 million children, benefited from the new tax credits. I accept that there have been problems with tax credits, but many people have benefited from them.
	I noted carefully, as did the Secretary of State, the issues surrounding the overpayment of tax credits. The Department is not responsible for that, but we share concern about it. I shall investigate the adverse impact and interaction with other benefits that have been mentioned, as well as issues about capital that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised. I accept that we need to look at that.
	The child trust fund will make a meaningful difference to the savings environment in future generations by promoting positive attitudes towards savings. This is not an occasion to debate the Child Support Agency, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has read carefully the excellent report from the Select Committee, to which we will respond in weeks. We are not happy with the performance of the CSA. Those children need support from both parents, wherever possible. We must make progress and we intend to do so. I have mentioned some of what we are doing for children. I cannot deal with the subject holistically as that would mean speaking more about education.
	As regards people of working age, we are again proud of our record. Unemployment is at a 30-year low. The number of people in work is up by 2 million since 1997. There are more than 28.5 million people in work, the highest number ever. Compared with the G8 or the European Union, our employment rate of nearly 75 per cent. is almost at the top of the international league table. Iceland is top at 80 per cent. I do not know whether my Secretary of State has visited Iceland—I refer to the country, not the superstore—but our ambition now is an employment rate of 80 per cent.
	Opportunities for people with disabilities will be greatly increased by the measures in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is very relevant to our employment ambitions. By focusing on what people can do rather than on what they cannot do, we are determined to help the many who are currently on incapacity benefit and want to return to work to do so. We are doing that through our pathways to work and new deal programmes. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire comment favourably on aspects of our policy in this regard. It is a challenge for all of us to recognise that, although there is much discussion of the appropriate retirement age, too many of our citizens are effectively retired in their 50s, rather than their 60s.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has just said that she wants to dispose of this motion quickly because she wants to guarantee three hours of debate on the Bill. If that is what she wanted, it would have been quite simple not to have tabled this programme motion at all. So I do not agree with her basic premise, and it would be quite remiss of me to pass up this opportunity without making some further comments. I note that the Minister has apologised unreservedly on a particular matter, and I shall refer to that matter in the course of my remarks on the programme motion.
	I believe that it was only yesterday evening that the official Opposition discovered the details of the programme motion that is on today's Order Paper. The motion limits the entire Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill to a mere three hours. If I have read it correctly, it provides 45 minutes for this debate on the programme motion. The Report stage can take up to two hours from the time this debate started at 5.25, and there will be an hour thereafter for our Third Reading debate. It is interesting to see that the Government have protected the Third Reading debate, because on another Bill recently, they completely failed to do so. They have obviously learned from their mistakes. I had to weigh up whether to debate this motion, thereby using up part of that precious time, and I decided that the time allotted was so meagre that I ought to make this protest, and to put on record the views of the Opposition.
	There is no doubt that the programming device is the subject of a great deal of controversy. It is neither an equal nor a fair process, and it certainly enables the Government to impose a timetable irrespective of the views of the Opposition. That is, of course, if the Opposition have had an opportunity to put their views.
	The report on the programming of legislation was published in July 2004. It was the product of the Procedure Committee, of which I was a member many years ago and which does sterling work.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact is, however, that the Minister is able to get press releases out and not leave time for them to be discussed, and was not capable of producing from her office—throughout the recess—the information that she had promised in Committee. I know she is sorry, I know she has apologised and I accept that apology, but it is still absolutely appalling.
	Let me end by returning to the Procedure Committee's excellent report, which made certain recommendations. For the sake of the Minister and those who support her, I should say that page 21 needs to be read carefully. At paragraph 13—unlucky for some—the Committee said:
	"We recommend that the Government should table its amendments for report stage in good time."
	At paragraph 15, it said:
	"We believe that the House will usually want to spend most of the time available considering amendments on report, rather than debating third reading at length."
	We are left with a programme motion that ensures that the Third Reading debate will be longer than the debate on Report, which is directly contrary to the Committee's recommendations. That does not surprise me, however. Only yesterday, the remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill did not complete their course here. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is to be rushed through in two days, and because of a programme motion part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Bill was not discussed at all, although it involved serious constitutional issues. What hope have we for the Drugs Bill, which deals with a matter that is so important to families and communities up and down the land?
	This is a pattern with the current Government, who wish to stifle debate and, dare I say it?, diminish the standing and powers of Parliament. No doubt the Drugs Bill will be added to the wonderful table in the Committee's report, table A on page Ev5. It gives a long catalogue of Bills in the 2002–03 Session parts of which were never reached and never discussed in the House.
	I invite my hon. Friends, and anyone else who cares to join me in the Lobby, to vote against the motion as a matter of principle. Once again the Government have been discourteous to the Opposition, have shown that they are not organised or competent, and have sought to stifle debate about something on which I believe Conservative policies are winning hearts and minds throughout the country. I think people believe that the Government have failed to act successfully on drugs.

Cheryl Gillan: I accede to in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was referring to a previous Bill where there was no protection at all for Third Reading and the debate was completely lost.

Alistair Carmichael: We should be fortunate and have three quarters of an hour, if that is fortunate.
	A number of issues have come to mind as I have considered the Minister's correspondence this afternoon. On first reading, I thought that it was fairly innocuous. The more I read it, the more I think, "Perhaps there is a point to be asked about here and a point to be asked about elsewhere." I hope that, when the Bill leaves the House, as I think it inevitably will tonight, and goes to the other place, the matters that we are not able to deal with today but that have been raised in correspondence from the Minister will get a fuller hearing and that there may be an opportunity for us to deal with those matters during consideration of Lords amendments.
	I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was not able to get the Government amendments through PDVN. I was able to get them through PDVN. I am delighted that, for once, in a technological sense, things seem to be working better in Orkney and Shetland than in Chesham and Amersham.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He might want to consider that, first, the Minister was interrupted in mid-flow on a new clause in order for us to vote on the reclassification of cannabis; I have referred to the record in that regard. Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that part of the Bill refers to provisions in Northern Ireland and that no Northern Ireland Member served on the Committee, it is even more important that consideration on Report be allowed to run for some time, so that Northern Ireland Members can make points on behalf of their territory?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is of course correct. The point is that the Government are now deciding how much time they themselves will allow Members to do the job that they have been elected to do, which is to scrutinise the Government's legislation.
	Let us examine the specifics. There are five groups of amendments. They are not trivial and they cover some important and fundamental points. The first group deals with provision for schools and with children, and the second deals with dangerous driving. The third group concerns our old friend—substituting "shall" for "may". That always sounds trivial and innocuous, but it rarely is because it is almost always of extreme importance. The fourth group deals with the role of the Secretary of State, which is also a matter on which we should dwell. The final group consists of new clause 1, which deals with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out, the extremely important issue of the classification of cannabis.
	Any one of those groups could easily justify at least an hour's debate in the House—if not several hours—because in theory several hundred Members might want to debate these matters, and they would be entitled to do so. Instead, the Government have said, "You will be allowed a maximum of two hours to consider all of these matters." That is 24 minutes per group, and if time is allowed for contributions from the Minister and other Front Benchers, there would probably be no time left for Back Benchers. That is the absurd situation in which we now find ourselves. The Government are saying that they do not think that Members need to bother turning up to debate these matters, because they do not think that time should be given to do that. That is the essence of the motion.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point on which I will allow myself to be drawn briefly. He is referring to the mysterious ways in which membership of Committees is decided by this House—or, indeed, by the usual channels. The important point is that, sadly, it is therefore likely that members serving on Committees dealing with Bills such as this might not represent views generally held throughout the House. In particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) suggested, distinguished Members such as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn)—he is present now and smiling at me, and I am smiling at him—have a unique contribution to make. Today's debate should be an opportunity for such Members. It should not be time-limited by the Government.

Eric Forth: I suspect that the best opportunity for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) may be on Third Reading, when there may be a chance for the House to press the Minister on matters that are not necessarily covered by the selected groups of amendments on Report. Subject to your discretion and decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be appropriate to pursue the matter of Northern Ireland with the Minister on Third Reading. In my view, that would be entirely appropriate.
	Key issues in the Bill—including the selling of drugs to children, the impact of drugs on driving, the role of the Secretary of State and, not least, the classification of cannabis—are of great substance and importance in their own right. Members who did not sit in Committee—not least, the hon. Member for Newport, West—should now have their opportunity to contribute to the debate in the Chamber, but I suspect that none of that is going to happen. There will be no proper opportunity for debate and Members at large will have little chance to contribute. Sadly, that will once again make an absolute nonsense and a farce of the proper role of the House of Commons in scrutinising legislation.

Henry Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am indeed aware of what is happening in terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee early on in this Parliament. I am aware of the background, therefore, and the point that she makes is absolutely spot on. Given that the Assembly is suspended, surely the Government should be doubly cautious, sensitive and understanding when it comes to the needs of the Province. They should therefore ensure that proper time is given for a Bill of this nature, which is not controversial.
	In her excellent speech a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out that several other Bills—the Civil Contingencies Bill and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, to name but two—have been subjected to the same timetabling tactics. Earlier in this Parliament, I belonged to the Standing Committee considering the Adoption and Children Bill, which was also uncontroversial and given all-party support. Many hon. Members were keen to ensure that this House produced good law that would endure and command respect. Laws like that are effective and can be upheld in the courts, but they cannot be achieved if the Government are always trying to rush them through the House.
	There is no good reason for the Government's determination to rush this Bill through—apart from the possibility that the Minister and her team just want to go back to their offices or their homes early. The Bill's Report and Third Reading should be considered over a prolonged period of time, as there are many additional points that need to be discussed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out that we made good progress in Standing Committee and that the Bill enjoyed all-party support. However, some aspects of it were not properly debated. We should have liked more time in Committee, but the Opposition co-operated with the Government as much as we possibly could. We went out of our way to be co-operative and responsible and, to the extent that it is possible for an Opposition to do so, to help the Government get the Bill through Committee. That is why I am appalled by the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham received from the Minister and the notification of the amendments. What is going on? We have just had 10 days off for half-term. Did the Home Office simply close down during that period? What were the Minister's civil servants doing? Why on earth could they not have contacted members of the Committee in good time, given us plenty of warning and behaved more imaginatively and proactively, which might have led to better legislation? What the Government are doing this afternoon is likely to lead to bad legislation and that is why I shall support my hon. Friend in the forthcoming Division.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Aggravated supply of controlled drug

Caroline Flint: Certainly it is still an offence for someone to supply controlled drugs. Such a person would be arrested and, I hope, charged with a drug offence, and it would be for the courts to take that into consideration as an aggravating factor, along the same lines as the aggravating factor of using children as couriers. The purpose is to focus the minds of those in our legal system on the importance of these issues, which should be reflected in sentencing. In Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised the issue of transparency, and I have agreed to write to the Sentencing Guidelines Council about how aggravating factors apply to sentencing. I felt that the hon. Gentleman had made a fair point.
	Before issuing guidance my officials have already begun to consult Adfam, Turning Point, Drugscope, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Youth Justice Board. During initial discussions with a number of those bodies, none of them supported a definition of "vicinity" in the Bill; they felt that that should be covered by the guidance.
	As for amendment No. 4, I understand the desire to protect young people from dealers operating in the vicinity of places other than schools, but feel that there are real practical difficulties in establishing what constitutes such a place. What constitutes a congregation of young people—three or 30? Moreover, as I have said, the current sentencing guidelines list, among other aggravating factors, "deliberately targeting vulnerable victims". I believe that that gives courts discretion to deal with young people appropriately.
	Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we live in a time when drug dealing can take place in any location where there are young people. The aim is to come up with a focused practical measure that can be enforced in a way that does not dilute what we are trying to do. That is why we have singled out schools for the purposes of this offence.
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would require a court to identify an aggravating factor increasing the seriousness of an offence of supplying drugs when a person commits the offence in the vicinity of a school at any time. As we have acknowledged, schools are not the same as they were in our time, when the school day lasted from 9 am until 3.30 or 4 pm. I think we are all pleased that schools are now live buildings that operate outside the normal school day and are open to the wider community, and we have covered that in the Bill.
	Again, however, we do not want to dilute the aggravating factor. On occasion a school may be closed, with no one on the premises. To apply the aggravating factor when young people are not exposed would, in my view, undermine the clause. We should not forget that someone dealing in drugs outside a school at any time is liable to arrest and prosecution, but we do not think it appropriate for a court to apply the aggravating factor to those dealing at 2 am, when children are not using the premises. There must be a link with the risk of exposure.
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 go beyond the intention of the clause. Because the clause catches all who deal in the vicinity of schools, the amendments would establish an aggravating factor when an adult dealer supplied drugs to another adult in the vicinity of a school, even if he did so when the school was shut and no young persons were present and exposed to risk. We must not lose the focus of the clauses.
	As for Government amendment No. 12, clause 1 makes it an aggravating factor—which a court must take into account when deciding the seriousness of a drug supply offence—to use a person under 18 as a courier. I know from what people have told me that there is concern about the use of children by adults wishing to avoid prosecution, and I think that that is terrible. We had a productive discussion in Committee, and I agreed with a number of points that were made.
	New section 4A(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which clause 1 inserts, provides that a person uses a courier in connection with an offence
	"if he requests another person . . . to deliver a controlled drug to a third person"
	or
	"to deliver drug related cash to himself or a third person."
	In Committee the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled an amendment that sought to strengthen the word "requests", to make it clear that all acts of both commission and omission that a dealer might undertake in order for a young person to act as a courier were considered to be an aggravating factor. I acknowledged the merit of what the amendment was intended to achieve, and I hope that our amendment will achieve the same objective. It would replace "requests" with "causes or permits", so that the clause would catch not just any positive act that a dealer might commit to force or persuade a young person to act as a courier, but a dealer who accepted an offer from a young person to act as a courier. In Committee, we discussed circumstances in which young people might wish to ingratiate themselves with, say, someone with a fast car, and might offer to be used in that way. This provision would capture that possibility, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in Committee.
	On Government amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18, again, the Bill deals with young people under the age of 18 who are used as couriers. New section 4A, which is inserted by clause 1, provides that for this purpose, drug-related cash is cash obtained in connection with the supply of a controlled drug or intended to be used to obtain a controlled drug. New section 4A(8) defines cash as including inter alia notes and coins and any monetary instruments specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who tabled an amendment designed to have the effect of broadening the definition of cash to ensure that all possible forms of payment or reward for drugs received was caught. She argued that the definition in the Bill may not recognise the reality of the situation, because payments may be made, for example, in the form of consumer goods, CDs or clothes, as well as cash and monetary instruments. I acknowledged her argument and I hope that she will agree that we have come back with a suitable amendment to replace the term "drug related cash" with the term "a drug related consideration". That is further defined by amendment No. 14 as
	"a consideration of any description".
	We had a discussion about "a consideration" in Committee as well, and I have sought and obtained definitive legal advice. We are clear that it would not be appropriate to define the term "consideration" in the Bill. I understand—as a lawyer, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will probably know better than me—that it is a standard legal term that should properly be interpreted by the courts. It is used without definition in much other legislation, such as the Criminal Law Act 1967, the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. To attempt to define "consideration" would call into question some of those other pieces of primary legislation.
	Amendment No. 15 widens the definition of "a drug related consideration" to cover that which is intended to be used in connection with obtaining a controlled drug as well as that to be used to obtain a controlled drug. The detailed definition of cash in new section 4A(8) is therefore no longer required, and amendment No. 16 deletes it. The new section contains a power for the Secretary of State to make an order specifying monetary instruments that fall within the definition of cash. That is no longer needed, and amendment No. 18 deletes it.
	Amendment No. 13 and consequential amendments Nos. 14 and 15, 16 and 18 taken together have the effect of ensuring that all forms of payment or reward in exchange for drugs are covered by the clause. I commend the Government amendments to the House and I hope that on the basis of my explanation, Opposition Members will not press their amendments.

Cheryl Gillan: It is a shame on the hon. Gentleman because I hope to leave at least some time for him to say a few words on the off-chance, but forgive me if I do not manage it.
	I welcome the Government amendments. We spent a lot of time on this clause in Committee because the Government made it a flagship clause. The Minister has admitted that there were some problems with its drafting. I find that extraordinary because the provision to make an aggravated offence for dealing around schools has been on the drawing board for some time. To have brought it to the House in such an imperfect form is extraordinary, but I admit that the amendments that she has tabled, which were stimulated by the debate on the Opposition Benches, will improve this part of the Bill no end.
	I am particularly pleased that the Minister has caught up with the 21st century and realised that her original drafting, which included the exchange of bankers' drafts and bearer bonds and bearer shares by dealers in and around a school, is not today's reality. Her reality check has brought her to use the words "a drug-related consideration". That is an excellent development that recognises that youngsters deal in and exchange many other things, from mobile phones and the new iPods, to cash or anything else that happens to be at hand. I must say that bearer bonds and bankers' drafts are used rarely.

Caroline Flint: I agree that their use is rare, but I remember that, in Committee, the hon. Lady thought that they were used at Cheltenham ladies' college.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister ought to ask her colleague, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), about that. She was in my year at Cheltenham ladies' college, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was also at school with me. The Minister has two Cheltenham ladies' college girls on her side of the House, whereas we have only one who has seen the light. We will exchange no further views on that.
	I thank the Minister for her letter of 17 February dealing with some points raised in Committee, which I did not receive until yesterday morning. Despite those comments to me at that late stage and her comments at length just now, the clause is still imperfect and certainly not strong enough. I want to consider the amendments that I tabled, which would widen and strengthen the clause. I hope that I will be able to press the House to a Division when the time comes, particularly on amendment No. 5, if not also amendment No. 6, because nothing that the Minister has so far said has led me to believe that my amendments will do anything other than strengthen this part of the Bill, which is what we have been seeking to do.
	Amendment No. 4 would widen the protection afforded to children where they congregate, or receive instruction or training. In her letter of 17 February concerning clause 1, the Minister said:
	"I am advised that the clause does not include school premises which are in community use (eg a community church), even when the persons under the age of 18 are using the premises for such community purposes. This is because the term 'use' implies 'use as a school'. Children will be protected by this clause so long as they are using the school for some school-related purpose (eg., night class/drama rehearsal)."
	That is not the comfort zone that I was seeking concerning the interpretation of this clause. It is my understanding that the Minister is actually saying that the aggravation factor will not apply if, for example, the children are at a school premises and attending a Sunday school.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that reassurance and I was anticipating that the Minister might intervene on me. That goes to show that even the information that the Minister and her office provided to the Opposition so late in the day was inaccurate and no attempt was made to correct it in the ensuing period. Information has been introduced at this late stage and the Opposition were not notified; in fact, the material provided to us was obviously inaccurate. I am pleased that the Minister has explained the situation, which may lead me to withdraw amendment No. 4. Although the amendment is not perfectly drafted, its purpose is to widen the spirit of the clause.
	Examples have been one of the Minister's strong points and I would like to discuss another example, which I hope that she will be able to tell me will definitely fall within the ambit of the Bill. For example, I want to be able to protect children when they are in a learning environment that is not necessarily on school premises. The Minister confirmed earlier that, if children from a school were playing sports at a private club, they would not be covered by the Bill. In my constituency, some children are taken out of school and put into a completely separate learning environment from which they can benefit.
	I shall provide one example of a project designed to help children who are having a tough time in school and who respond to learning in a different way. I refer particularly to the "Skids" project in Buckinghamshire. It takes place away from school and the kids get to work with cars and bikes. The kids get to do what they want to do and they respond very well. I want some reassurance that, if anyone enters those premises to deal to those children, who may not have responded so well to normal school practices, the Bill will protect them. The Minister is looking puzzled—

Cheryl Gillan: That disappoints me. It may apply to pupil referral units, but when a group of vulnerable youngsters are in another learning environment outside the school—and they have been taken outside of school by the school itself—they will not be covered. Once again, the issues have not been thought through.
	I want the Minister to respond, if she has time, to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 because they are designed to strengthen clause 1. The Minister says that she wants to protect children and that clause 1 is all about protecting children, yet she places a whole series of provisos on that protection by using the phrase "at a relevant time" at the end of subsection (3) and by including in subsection (5), the phrases
	"any time when a school is in use by persons under the age of 18"
	and
	"one hour before the start and one hour after the end of any such time".
	That effectively removes from the Bill's protection the very premises that attract children out of school hours.
	Many of our youngsters feel safe and secure in the environments in and around school premises. The Minister must know that, because she must have seen, as I have, children congregating in and around school premises long after the school has closed. That is the very time—late at night—when these children are most vulnerable and when the dealer will have greatest access to them. Dealers well know that children can be found in and around a set of premises with which they are familiar. Why on earth is the Minister cutting off her nose to spite her face over this matter? It would be simple to remove the term "at a relevant time" and remove subsection (5) so that the provisions would apply in, around or in the vicinity of school premises. I cannot understand why she is resisting and providing the dealers with a loophole. The dealers will find it easy to set up their places around schools at 11 o'clock at night, after they have shut down at 8 pm, yet they will not qualify for additional sentencing on grounds of aggravation under clause 1.
	I sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider my amendments Nos. 5 and 6, on which I hope we will be able to vote. The common sense of the amendments has attracted some interest from Labour Members because they realise that they are proposed sincerely to protect children in and around schools. I hope that, if we vote on the amendments, Labour Members will join us in the Lobby.
	Amendment No. 3 attempts to define the term "vicinity", and I listened to what the Minister had to say. She quoted a lot from her 17 February letter, but I am no longer sure which parts of that letter are accurate and about which she has sought further advice from parliamentary counsel. One part of the letter refers specifically to the matter addressed by amendment No. 3. She wrote:
	"Where a school has residential accommodation which is not on the site where teaching takes place, then this will also be caught so long as it is not occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the school."
	Why is that exemption made? If a school's caretaker were a drug dealer and lived in a nearby dwelling provided by the school, the drug deals are more than likely to happen at that dwelling.

Caroline Flint: I am mindful of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall look at Hansard and reflect on what the hon. Lady said.
	The Bill builds on a strategy dealing with better enforcement in relation to supply and with how we might better engage young people, as well as get those who are addicted to drugs into treatment. That applies to those who are committing crimes, but our intervention in building capacity is also having a knock-on effect for those who are addicted to drugs but are not committing crimes. As I said, the Bill builds on that strategy.
	Several measures in parts 1 and 2 are a direct result of working with and listening to groups such as police forces from around the country and other organisations in respect of the need to have specific targeted powers to tackle the problems of street-level dealing of class A drugs. We had a wide-ranging discussion earlier about the vicinity of schools and part of a discussion about children being used as couriers, so I shall not expand any further on those issues.
	We are also giving police and courts additional powers to tackle drug dealers who swallow drugs or conceal them about their bodies, and we believe that the measures in the Bill will send a clear message to street-level drug dealers that it will be more difficult to hide evidence and escape prosecution where they have committed an offence.
	On the powers for testing on arrest and follow-up assessment, we have again learned from experience. While we were making in-roads with those whom we were testing on charge, who would perhaps present themselves for voluntary assessment if they were found class A positive as a result of such a test, we felt that we wanted to tighten that procedure. That is why we believe that testing on arrest is important and that making the assessment following a positive test should be mandatory, rather than voluntary. Of course, that links to the other measures that we already have on bail conditions at court, as well as other provisions in the Bill allowing for police bail to take into account someone's co-operation in dealing with their drug misuse problem.
	Since antisocial behaviours were introduced, they have become a vital tool. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is obviously aware of that, and she would like to see them extended to Northern Ireland. The new civil intervention order that we are seeking to introduce will allow us to continue tackling the underlying causes of a person's antisocial behaviour. There is already provision for such an order to apply to young people with drugs problems who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but we felt that there was a gap in respect of some adults for whom there might be a problem.
	Clarifying the status of fresh magic mushrooms is an issue that we debated in Committee. The issue is not defining magic mushrooms as a harmful drug. It is a harmful and hallucinogenic drug that is on a par with LSD, but what we are trying to do is close a gap whereby some 400 outlets have developed—I was going to say mushroomed—in the past year. The outlets are selling the mushrooms fresh and not in a prepared state, thereby exploiting a loophole in the current law. We are closing down that avenue as well.
	The Bill adds to what we are already achieving. It is based on gaps that people have identified and experience of implementation of the law as it stands. I hope that it sends a strong message that illegal drugs are a blight on our communities and that they have to be tackled not only on an international and national level, but also on a community level. I believe that we now have the framework in place to tackle the issue on all fronts. I was involved with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. The fact that the serious organised crime agency will have as its priorities drug and immigration crime will be an important contribution to this area, and through the Bill before us, we can further seek to deal with these problems in a real, practical and meaningful way.

Cheryl Gillan: I say to the Minister that I am not being curmudgeonly. I acknowledge that she has listened to what the Opposition had to say. As I said, we conducted the passage of the Bill in relative harmony until the past few hours, but we have rehearsed in the Chamber the problems with her administrative arrangements, and I am sure that she will try in future to do better.
	We have not however had time to discuss the Bill. For example, we have not had the opportunity today to discuss new clause 1, an important clause which indicates that the Conservative party would reclassify cannabis. I felt that is was important to discuss that subject in the context of the Bill, not least because yesterday's Daily Mail trumpeted the success of the Government's drugs policy in an article entitled, "Cannabis sales bonanza":
	"The supply of cannabis has turned into a boom industry since the drug was downgraded, it was claimed yesterday. Police have made several large seizures in the South East since it was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in January last year. They believe criminals are trafficking huge quantities because they think law enforcement agencies 'have taken their eye off the ball'. Officers have been under orders to stop arresting adults for possessing cannabis, except in exceptional circumstances, and to let them off with a warning and confiscation instead. The idea was to give police more time to tackle the trade in hard drugs such as heroin. But Scotland Yard chiefs believe the switch has sent out the 'wrong message' to criminal gangs, who are now focusing their attention on the softer drug. 'One of the biggest growth areas in the shifting of organised crime towards cannabis importation,' a senior Yard source said yesterday." [Interruption.]
	The fact that the Whip is scoffing from the Front Bench shows that he does not think that the use of cannabis is a problem, which reflects the Government's attitude. Fortunately, that is not the Conservative party's attitude towards cannabis, and it is a shame that we were not able to have the discussion that we deserved on the Bill.
	Few problems facing our society today cause so much crime, misery, pain and the squandering of human talent as drug abuse and addiction, and one has only to examine the statistics for the prison population to see the evidence. More than 55 per cent. of convicted prisoners report committing offences connected with their drug taking, with the need for money to buy drugs being the most commonly cited factor. Shoplifting, burglary, vehicle crime and theft are all linked to drug misuse. Think of all the victims who are affected by drugs.
	At the same time, the number of people imprisoned for drugs offences is high and growing. Back in 1993, drugs offences accounted for 7 per cent. of male and 27 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners. By 2002, the percentages had grown to 16 per cent. of male and 40 per cent. of female sentenced prisoners. The criminal possession and use of firearms is rising, particularly in urban areas, and the price of drugs has dropped alarmingly. Drug trafficking continues to be highly profitable and attracts more and more recruits from street dealing to manufacturing and importing.
	The Government have offered up a very small and very thin Drugs Bill in the shadow of a general election. Why has it taken so long to introduce this particular Bill? I have a BBC news item from 21 May 2002, which stated:
	"Drug dealers who target children at the school gate could face longer jail sentences under a new law being considered by the government."
	At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was shadow Education Secretary. He said that
	"the government had clearly not thought the matter through and accused ministers of operating 'a media-driven stunt'"
	Today, we can see that it was a media-driven stunt, because the Government have had two years in which to introduce the provisions around schools. They did not choose to do so, and now they have introduced the Bill, they have not offered the full protection that we expect.
	I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary would not accept amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I do not want to rehearse the arguments, but it is obvious that she is leaving loopholes in the measure. She has not drawn up clause 1 in a way that will protect our children adequately.
	The Bill is a missed opportunity. It has missed the opportunity to protect children wherever they congregate. The Under-Secretary has not protected even the most obvious places. On Report, she suggested that even a project to which schoolchildren are sent because they do not respond to teaching in school will fall outside the provisions. That means that vulnerable children will not be adequately protected in an educational environment. She has failed to grasp the opportunity to protect even youth clubs or other places where young people gather.
	The hon. Lady has failed to reclassify cannabis. She has spent a lot of money on telling people that it remains illegal, but the latest reports make it clear that cannabis use and importation are growing. She failed to reclassify even khat, which was raised in Committee.

Cheryl Gillan: The Under-Secretary's words are hollow and I shall set out our intentions shortly. There has been a missed opportunity and the Minister's comments are mere bluff and sentences thrown out purely for media benefit, not long-term benefit.
	The Under-Secretary has missed the opportunity to set mandatory sentences for repeat drug offences by drug dealers. She has missed the opportunity to provide for automatic custodial sentences for those who deal to children. She has missed the opportunity to convince me that she has more plans for increasing the training and supply of suitably qualified drugs workers and assessors. We discussed that in Committee, and nothing she said will increase the qualifications and standards of people who treat drug users.
	The Government should make a clear statement about drugs. They should have welcomed my suggestions for strengthening the Bill's provisions for dealing with drugs. The Government's message has failed the clarity test on many occasions and it lacks urgency. If I am in charge of drugs policy after the election, we will convey a clear message to people about drugs. We will reclassify cannabis to end Labour's confusion and send a clear message that the drug is dangerous.We will ensure that the message gets across that drugs are dangerous and illegal, that they ruin lives and that people should not take them. We will also ensure that random drug testing is supported for schools, and we will certainly allow head teachers to have the final say on expulsions. We will also provide the resources to enable drug addicts who wish to get off drugs to take up residential rehabilitation, by massively expanding the number of places available above and beyond the 2,500 that exist at present.
	The Conservative party will make other announcements on these issues. In the meantime, I hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords, they will be able to strengthen its provisions and perhaps add to them. Rather than being a comprehensive attempt to tackle a growing problem, this is a Bill that has been slipped in to try to boost the illusion that the Government are taking action when, in fact, very little has occurred. It is basically a cynical electioneering platform. After the election, however, we will have the opportunity to put forward a well thought through, resourced programme of action to help the addicts who wish to reform, to punish the dealers who peddle misery and death, and to protect our children. That day cannot come soon enough.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman says that we are part of the Scottish Executive. He is very perceptive: I have never sought to deny that. However, the Liberal Democrats do not have to pretend that everything that we do in Government is correct. There is occasionally scope for improvement, and I would commend such an approach to Back-Bench Labour MPs, if any were in the Chamber to hear it.
	Others have observed that this is an election Bill. I drew that inevitable conclusion on Second Reading, and I am afraid that everything I have seen subsequently has served only to reinforce that view. We need something rather more comprehensive. Every 10 years or so, we have a revision of the Road Traffic Acts, but it is now more than 30 years since we had a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and such a review is long overdue. The best illustration of that came from our discussions on classification, particularly of psilocybin, or magic mushrooms. If we are to classify drugs according to their harm, the classifications A, B and C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 manifestly are no longer sufficient.
	Instead, the Government propose revisions of the 1971 Act in clauses 1, 2 and 21. I feel that clause 1 is an exercise in window dressing that does not achieve a great deal. I was reinforced in my view when I read The Press and Journal—a publication that I commend to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as being infinitely superior to The Daily Telegraph—which reported on its front page of 29 January 2005, "Sheriff Lashes Out At Cannabis Confusion".
	The Press and Journal reported a case from Aberdeen sheriff court, where the presiding sheriff was Sheriff Douglas Cusine, who in a previous incarnation as Professor Douglas Cusine was foolish enough to try to teach me conveyancing, but who otherwise is a man of blameless judgment and reputation. It will be of interest to the hon. Lady that the sheriff said that the reclassification of cannabis from B to C
	"caused confusion in the minds of some".
	He went on:
	"I myself have some difficulty in understanding precisely what message it is the Government was intending to convey because cannabis is no less dangerous than it was before and the penalties for being involved in cannabis are exactly the same."
	The case was brought against Craig Meldrum, who was sentenced to two months' detention in a young offenders' institution for supplying cannabis—presumably cannabis resin—at Ellon academy in Aberdeenshire. Sheriff Cusine observed that drugs are the scourge of many schools and have to be tackled. He also said that supplying is serious, particularly when the "targets" are schoolchildren.
	I bring that matter to the attention of the House because here we have an example of a sheriff applying the law as it stands and giving a more serious sentence—an aggravated sentence—where the supply in question concerns children in school. In other words, the law as it exists operates quite adequately to protect against the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy. That is why I say that so much in Bill is in many ways merely window dressing.
	I also have reservations about the operation of clause 2. Those were rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee so I shall not go over them again, but I take issue with the claims made on behalf of the clause by the Minister in her letter to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, dated 22 February 2005, which has already been referred to. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 5, where the Minister states:
	"Nonetheless our view is that this clause is a sensible step to take. It has advantages in that (a) not all defendants will be able to successfully"—
	I apologise for the split infinitive, but I am quoting directly—
	"raise the issue".
	I am not quite sure why that is considered relevant. If it is perhaps being suggested that people who are not possessed of intent to supply will still be convicted I would have concerns.
	The letter goes on to say that the clause
	"will send out a clear message to dealers whose current methods may well be disrupted"—
	I do not understand how the Government have reached that conclusion—
	"and (c) it will improve consistency as to when those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply."
	That in itself is absolutely fascinating, because, having been through all six Committee sittings and Second Reading, and having received more briefings on the Bill than I care to remember, I know that this is the first occasion on which anybody has suggested that there is a problem with clarity or consistency as to when
	"those in possession with drugs are charged with intent to supply."
	Again, we seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
	The classification of magic mushrooms as a class A drug does not make ready sense to me. Putting them in class A, where they are on a parallel with heroin and cocaine, is difficult to justify and eloquently shows the inadequacy of the law as it stands.
	As I have said, there is no doubt that drugs are a growing menace in our society. However, little that has been done in the 33 years since the enactment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 seems to have been particularly effective. Nothing seems to have stopped the growing menace that permeates so many parts of our society. Drugs dealing seems to be a many-headed hydra—for every dealer who is removed, another three take his or her place. Surely this is a time to stop, take proper stock and proper consideration, and to ask whether things might be done better were much of this consideration removed from the political forum, which, notwithstanding the good nature of these proceedings, has been shown to be wholly inadequate to the task.
	I very much regret that not a lot in the Bill will make an awful lot of difference in the long run. I am not opposing the Bill; I just wish that the Government had introduced something that the House could have approved and supported rather more enthusiastically than I am able to do tonight.

Andrew Selous: No doubt like many other Members, I represent a constituency in which heroin use is quite a serious problem in the villages of south Bedfordshire that I represent and in the former market towns in my constituency. Tonight, however, I want to speak about cannabis. The Government's declassification of cannabis from class B to C, and the consequences of that, is one of the actions of their term in office about which I am most upset and angry.
	About a year ago, I attended a mental health carers support group meeting in my constituency. About 12 people came to the meeting that evening, all of whom cared for sufferers of mental illness, mainly family members. Some eight or nine out of the 12, when they explained the situation of their son, daughter or partner, were absolutely clear that cannabis had been the cause of the mental illness from which they were suffering. I see the Minister shaking her head when I say that, but an increasing amount of research evidence also points to that, and the fact is that cannabis today is considerably stronger and more dangerous than that which was smoked many years ago.

Andrew Selous: The Minister will be aware that there is research that disputes that. She will have seen such research reports, but it is not the time, with a few minutes remaining, to go into that in great detail. The fact is that there is a considerable body of opinion that believes that cannabis is stronger now and causes mental health problems. It worries me massively that the Minister sits there shaking her head and denying it. I wish that she could have come with me to that mental health carers support group meeting and met the families caring for the people concerned.
	I shall tell the Minister about one more individual, and I would be grateful if she could listen to this story. A young man who came to see me with his mother about three weeks ago had been on the threshold of a very bright future—he had been the head boy of his school and all set for a career in the armed services—but he is now completely in the hands of my local community health trust. He has a very serious mental illness problem, which is desperately sad for him and a great source of worry to his family, and which consumes a considerable amount of public funds. I spent half an hour with his mother two weeks ago, and she is adamant that what switched her son's future from being bright and promising was falling in with the wrong crowd and taking cannabis. That is the mother's view. The Minister can sit there and shake her head, but I ask her to consider the feelings of the families involved. She asked me about the research evidence. According to reports I have seen, there is research evidence suggesting that cannabis is causing such problems. I know that many of her hon. Friends feel as strongly as I do about that.

Caroline Flint: No, I will not.
	I am happy about that because it shows that the police are diverting their activity to where it is most necessary: to the import and distribution of drugs—cannabis or any other drug. The people involved in the distribution of drugs deal not just with cannabis but with heroin and cocaine.
	In relation to mental health, there is no proven causal link between cannabis and mental health problems but we recognise that people who have an underlying mental health issue and use drugs can exacerbate their problems. That is why we are working with mental health organisations to deal with that.
	The Bill is about providing more ways in which we can tackle the problems of drugs in our community through engaging with our young people by dealing with treatment and with supply. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Robert Walter: The subject of the debate is of much interest in my constituency, particularly in the Blandford area. May I express my thanks to the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt. Rev. David Stancliffe, who is a member of the other place, to his director of education for Salisbury diocese, Mr. Simon Tong and to the director of education for Dorset county council, David Goddard, for their help in preparing me for this debate.
	Capital funding is applied to voluntary-aided schools via three routes. There is the devolved formula capital, which is allocated directly to schools by formula on an annual basis for their discretionary use on a range of capital items. That is typically about £25,000 for a primary school and £90,000 for a secondary school at current rates. There is then the more important local education authority co-ordinated voluntary-aided programme, known as LCVAP, which is allocated annually to local education authorities by formula and distributed by them and the dioceses for expenditure on agreed middle-range capital projects, usually up to about £400,000 each. There is a restricted number of projects annually under that programme. The third route is the targeted capital funding, which is allocated centrally against bids by the local education authority and the dioceses for major capital projects.
	The main capital baseline for voluntary-aided schools covers the LCVAP and the targeted capital funding. The devolved formula capital is funded in addition to those. That is a complex system that has, I am told, proved difficult for the Department for Education and Skills to control and monitor. The annual announcements have become increasingly erratic in their timing, often coming months after their scheduled dates.
	I am told that a point was reached in June last year at which no further funding could be allocated, a moratorium on targeted capital funding bids was called and the LCVAP allocations summarily reduced. Only the devolved formula capital continued unabated.
	That has caused great problems for the dioceses and indirectly for the local education authorities. For example, my own Salisbury diocese is owed some £200,000 by the Department for outstanding works at Verwood Trinity Church of England first school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I understand that liability is accepted but that payment has not yet been approved because of lack of money in the VA capital budget.
	Although that crisis has forced the setting up of a joint working group between the Department and the dioceses to create a more manageable system, and although the latest announcements by the Government indicate some cause for optimism, the current situation is extremely difficult. It will continue thus until greater clarity emerges.
	The Salisbury diocese, which covers my constituency, has so many Church schools that any local education authority initiative that is not matched by voluntary–aided funding could result in a disparity of provision, even within the same town or area. Until now, the main driver of improvements to the diocesan building stock has been the LCVAP, but the national allocation has been drastically reduced in the current year and beyond. In 2003–04, it was £210 million; for 2004–05, it is £108 million; and in 2005–06 it will be £80 million. In 2006–07 and 2007–08, the estimated allocation is £66 million. The LCVAP allocation for Church schools in Dorset is £0.6 million for 2005–06, £0.5 million for 2006–07 and £0.51 million for 2007–08. There were successful targeted capital funding bids in Dorset of £1.2 million in both 2003–04 and 2004–05, but no bids are allowed for 2005–06. It was only the diocese's ability to carry forward £1.1 million that enabled it even to look at any projects under the scheme. I understand that TCF bidding rounds will take place only every two years.
	There has been a major crisis at Beachcroft primary school in Weymouth, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). However, he has made representations on this issue, so I do not want to dwell on it. Rather, I want to deal with the practical implications for major projects in my own constituency. Dorset local education authority is reorganising education in the Blandford area from three-tier to two-tier. That will incur significant building costs as first schools become primary schools.
	The diocese and the local education authority committed to this reorganisation in the expectation that TCF would be available to them, as it was in the previous year for the reorganisation of schools in the Shaftesbury pyramid, which is also in my constituency, and for the reorganisation of schools just across the border in west Wiltshire and Salisbury, which feed the Shaftesbury upper school. In that situation, the LCVAP could have covered the costs if the TCF had not been granted, but the 2004–05 bidding round was cancelled without warning, the LCVAP allocation was halved and a Church schools' private finance initiative was axed. There is currently no funding stream in place for these school improvements.
	The Archbishop Wake Church of England first school in Blandford needs some £2 million because it is moving site and taking over the premises of a former middle school. Blandford St. Mary first school needs £0.8 million, Durweston Church of England first school needs £0.5 million, and Spetisbury Hall and Slater's Church of England first school also needs £0.5 million. In summarising the situation in Blandford, I want to express my thanks to the head teachers of those four schools: Richard Chapman, of Archbishop Wake school, Judy Baker of Blandford St. Mary school, Neil Tarchetti of Durweston first school, and Sue Tipping Spetisbury Hall and Slater's school.
	Those four voluntary-aided schools are preparing for the change from a three-tier to a two-tier system. The effect will be that they change from first schools to primary schools, so they will have an extra two year groups of children and will need the resources, equipment and buildings to accommodate them.
	The reorganisation was to be funded through the targeted capital funding money—I mentioned it earlier—for which the diocese of Salisbury bids to the Department for Education and Skills. However, the bids to that fund have been stopped this year and the system is currently under review. As a group of schools, they entered into the reorganisation on the understanding that the required capital works, which are considerable, would commence in the academic year 2005–06. Work starting at this time is essential, because it is when the reorganisation takes place and the time at which this group of schools has to start providing a first-class education for the additional older children.
	Now that the funding has been withdrawn, the expected date for the completion of the work could be as late as 2008; without the target capital funding money, the diocese does not have the funds to carry out the work. That is particularly disturbing for a number of reasons. More than half the children in the Blandford pyramid are educated in voluntary-aided schools, and they will suffer from the lack of funding. As a pyramid of schools, they ensured complete unity and parity in the process up to now. The funding problem will prevent them from continuing in the same manner.
	The reorganisation appears to fit in with the Government's education policy, but the funding is not secure to carry it through. The lack of parity is made worse as the local education authority appears to have other ways to fund the required works for its schools. That means that the Church schools are disadvantaged when the LEA initiates a reorganisation, as it does not have a duty to the Church schools to see that it is carried through successfully. The Department for Education and Skills demands that LEAs remove surplus capacity, but what happens when 50 per cent. of the schools are actually voluntary aided? The LEA has a duty to reduce surplus accommodation, but no responsibility to the voluntary-aided schools.
	I put these questions to the Minister. Why has this funding been reduced at a time when the Government claim that they are spending more on education? Where has the money gone? Why, when Dorset receives the lowest central Government grant of any English local education authority, is the problem compounded by the adverse treatment of the diocesan schools' budget? What hope can I give to my constituents?

Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this debate on such an important issue. It gives me an opportunity to remind all hon. Members of the record levels of investment that the Government are making in all our schools. The voluntary-aided schools—the category that most people think of as "Church" schools—are receiving their fair and proportionate share of the investment. I appreciate that we have had to make some short-term adjustments to the balance in the various elements of that programme, and I will explain why in a moment.
	The capital programme for all voluntary-aided schools has increased from just above £100 million in 1996–97 to well over £0.5 billion pounds this year—in fact, some £540 million. Voluntary-aided schools in Dorset are receiving their share of that money. Indeed, since 1997, the Department has approved major capital projects at voluntary-aided schools in Dorset with a total value in excess of £19 million.
	We are aware that there are plans in parts of Dorset that may need major investment. We are announcing this week the details of the next round of bidding for the associated funding. Officials are prepared to work with the local authority and the relevant dioceses to ensure a consistent approach and consistent outcomes. I am particularly concerned that the voluntary-aided sector should not be at a disadvantage in relation to other categories of school. That is why I am keen that we reach agreement on funding for the planned reorganisation in the Blandford area. I shall say more about that shortly.
	I should also set the particular issues in a wider context. The capital programme for all maintained schools has gone from a totally inadequate base of less than £700 million in 1996–97 to £5.5 billion in the coming year. That will rise to £6.3 billion in 2007–08. That is enabling us to begin a radical programme, "Building Schools for the Future", to bring every secondary school in the country up to 21st-century standards. This programme will include all schools, including those that are voluntary-aided.
	I appreciate that it will be some time before Dorset schools benefit from the programme, but departmental officials are meeting local authority representatives early next month to discuss what we can do to help target the most pressing needs. More than a quarter of all local authorities are making a start with the programme now.
	This increased funding also has wider benefits. Support is being provided for a more diverse range of faith schools to become voluntary aided. They include Muslim, Greek Orthodox, and Seventh Day Adventist schools. In addition, more than £3.5 million has been provided to support the first Montessori school proposed to join the state sector.
	On top of the £19 million, we have increased the amounts that we pay to individual voluntary-aided schools by way of devolved former capital grant. The amount going to schools in Dorset has increased from £419,000 in 2000–01, when the grant was introduced, to £1.6 million in the coming year.
	The money enables schools to decide their specific priorities for smaller-scale investment. A typical primary school will receive £34,000 in 2007–08, compared with £12,000 when the grant was introduced five years ago. A typical secondary school will get £113,000, compared with £35,000 in 2000–01. I shall say something in a minute about the improvements that we plan to make to the way in which we pay the grant to voluntary-aided schools.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset asked about another part of the capital programme for voluntary-aided schools—the local education authority co-ordinated voluntary aid programme, or LCVAP. The aim of LCVAP is to allow local decisions to be taken to prioritise need and ensure that locally agreed capital work is carried out. The sums are calculated by formula, and are normally used for medium-scale capital works, although bigger projects can be funded by spreading the costs over more than one year. The money is allocated to individual projects by partnerships between local authorities and voluntary-aided sector representatives. At present, the Department retains the money, which is then paid direct to schools.
	We are aware that the voluntary-aided sector prefers to manage and prioritise work through this programme. For a number of years, the level of LCVAP has increased significantly. In Dorset, the amount has risen from some £200,000 in 1996–97 to £1.8 million in 2003–04. However, pressures elsewhere in the voluntary-aided capital programme meant that although the total programme had been increasing, we had to reduce the LCVAP element from this year, to ensure that the total programme for the voluntary-aided sector was not overspent. We also had to stop approving new projects towards the end of last year.
	One of the pressures on the voluntary-aided schools capital programme has been the devolved formula capital. Schools are allowed to roll their entitlement for up to three years, but the annual nature of public sector funding meant that there were difficulties in carrying forward the corresponding amounts of money.
	The sector has already benefited from the money in other ways, of which extra funding through LCVAP is one, but the difficulties also coincided with the large backlog of commitments built up on the bigger projects approved in earlier years. That mainly resulted from progress on building works being slower than expected—because of unexpected increases in costs, the vagaries of the weather, or delays arising from local issues, such as securing appropriate planning permissions. A combination of those factors meant that, to ensure that we did not overspend, it became necessary to reduce LCVAP. That was the only option available to us.
	The sector has generally understand that we had to do something. To resolve the problem, we have allocated additional money to the voluntary-aided capital programme for 2006–07 onwards. For the coming year of 2005–06, we have had to retain the reduced level of LCVAP, but we have announced that there will be a minimum level of LCVAP for 2006–07 and 2007–08.
	We have established a voluntary-aided capital working group, with representatives from the stakeholders in the voluntary-aided sector. It now includes a representative from the Dorset local authority. At its meeting last week, the group confirmed its wish to see as much as possible being paid through LCVAP. In light of that discussion, officials are working out the details of how the voluntary-aided capital programme could be divided into various elements. We will announce the final programme to 2007–08 by the end of next month.
	I fully expect that we will be able to increase LCVAP very substantially. Not only does that demonstrate our investment, it shows that we value the views of our partners in helping us to get the right balance between formulaic and targeted capital programmes that will ensure that the sector's needs are met. We are also arranging a conference in March for the major stakeholders in voluntary-aided schools to explain to them in detail how the voluntary-aided capital programme is formed, so that they understand the parameters within which we need to work. I am sure that it will be helpful to all those involved in the process.
	I understand that plans had been in place to use Dorset's share of the LCVAP programme to fund a planned reorganisation in Blandford, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Inevitably, considerable disappointment was felt when that could not proceed as planned. Although we had suggested alternative solutions to the problem, one of the options may no longer be available. It was to use funds from an existing project in Dorset that has not been able to progress for one of the reasons that I mentioned earlier. That money is not now available because there has been a fire at the school and some immediate funding is needed.
	It is therefore important that we work together to ensure that the best possible case is put forward, if it is still appropriate, for funding through our targeted capital funding route. Alternatively, those involved might think that the matter is better left until LCVAP funding is available again. That is why I have asked officials to work together with local stakeholders, as I mentioned earlier. I should also say that, as a general principle, we have also strengthened our internal processes to ensure that different outcomes do not arise for voluntary-aided schools if there is a clear link with decisions to be taken on other funding.
	I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is made aware of the outcomes of the discussions that take place between officials and those representing the local authority and the diocese. I wish to make it clear again that I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the apparent reduction in capital funding for voluntary-aided schools in his constituency. He also mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) had made representations to colleagues in the Department about the funding in Dorset and the implications in his constituency. However, in the bigger picture, there is no reduction, but the money has, of necessity, had to be reallocated in different ways to meet the sector's needs. As I have just mentioned, however, we are putting in even more money—another £80 million over the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08—to help to ensure that the problem does not arise again.
	The debate gives me the opportunity to remind the House that in 2002, the Government introduced a major reform of the basis for funding voluntary-aided schools through one of the first orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. We are building on that, together with the relevant stakeholders, and looking at the scope for simplification of the processes used to allocate and pay grant to those schools. Our aim will be to place as much responsibility for decision making and funding as possible where it should be—at local level.
	For example, I mentioned earlier the devolved formula capital grant that all maintained schools receive. For the voluntary-aided sector we propose to pay that money directly to the individual schools, without the need for a claim. We are also looking at the possibility of paying all capital grant to the voluntary-aided sector in a way that is much more in line with that used for other types of schools, although that will not entail any changes to the underlying principles relating to the voluntary-aided sector. The very simple aims are to cut out any unnecessary bureaucracy in the processes and to ensure greater consistency of treatment—I am sure that we would all agree with that.
	I acknowledge the problems that have occurred. I hope that I have been able to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of them and are trying to arrive at solutions that will benefit Blandford in particular and Dorset in general.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.